I'd Rather Die Standing Than Live on My Knees - Charlie Hebdo Pays the Price for Free Speech

CensoredBoardsSuck

Member
10+ Year Member
"I'd Rather Die Standing Than Live on My Knees"
by Mark Steyn • Jan 7, 2015 at 12:21 pm



1111.jpg


One of the cartoons that got the staff of Charlie Hebdo killed: "One hundred lashes if you don't die laughing."

My Wednesday appearance on The John Oakley Show was dominated by the breaking news from Paris of this morning's murderous assault on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Unlike so many of the supposedly "edgy" "satirists" on this side of the Atlantic, congratulating themselves on their transgressive "bravery" at one back-slapping awards ceremony after another, the editors, writers and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were genuinely brave - and paid for it with their lives.

I did not know at the time I spoke to John that among the dead was Stéphane "Charb" Charbonnier, the editor of Charlie Hebdo and a great cartoonist in the French style. Two years ago, he said:

It may seem pompous, but I'd rather die standing than live on my knees.

He did. He was an heroic figure, and he paid for it with his life. But he wasn't being in the least bit pompous, merely stating what ought to be far more obvious to far more people.

In contrast to the bravery of Charlie Hebdo, at my old London home The Daily Telegraph some gutless pansies decided that their reporting on the story could only be accompanied by carefully blurred and pixilated images of the late cartoonists' work in order to avoid giving offense. Unlike the late M Charbonnier, too many members of the media are perfectly happy to live on their knees. On page 297 of my book After America, I speculate on how future generations will look back on our time from a decade or two hence:

In the Middle East, Islam had always been beyond criticism. It was only natural that, as their numbers grew in Europe, North America and Australia, observant Muslims would seek the same protections in their new lands. But they could not have foreseen how eager Western leaders would be to serve as their enablers. ... As the more cynical Islamic imperialists occasionally reflected, how quickly the supposed defenders of liberal, pluralist, Western values came to sound as if they were competing to be Islam's lead prison bitch.

Among them is the so-called leader of the free world, who stood up before the world at the United Nations and, in service of his Administration's lies over Benghazi, shamefully told the assembled leaders:

The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.

Mission accomplished - at least in Paris. As I wrote two years ago:

The more that U.S. government officials talk about the so-called film "Innocence Of Muslims" (which is actually merely a YouTube trailer) the more they confirm the mob's belief that works of "art" are the proper responsibility of government. Obama and Clinton are currently starring as the Siskel & Ebert of Pakistani TV, giving two thumbs-down to "Innocence Of Muslims" in hopes that it will dissuade local movie-goers from giving two heads-off to consular officials. "The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video," says Hillary Clinton. "We absolutely reject its content, and message." "We reject the efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," adds Barack Obama. There follows the official State Department seal of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad...

Obama and Clinton's two-on-the-aisle act cost $70,000 of taxpayers' money. That may not sound much in the 16 trillion-dollar sinkhole of Washington, but it's a pretty big ad buy in Islamabad, and an improper use of public monies... I fought a long battle for freedom of expression north of the border when the Canadian Islamic Congress attempted to criminalize my writing, and I'm proud to say I played a modest role in getting Parliament to strike down a shameful law and restore a semblance of free speech to a country that should never have lost it. So I know a little about how the Western world is shuffling into a psychological bondage of its own making, and it's no small thing when the First Amendment gets swallowed up by the vacuum of American foreign policy.

Charb, Cabu, Tignous, Georges Wolinski and the others who died today were braver men than the stunted eunuchs who dominate the west's political class. The loss of the freedom to make jokes is not a small one, which is why there is an entire section in my latest book called "Last Laughs". To modify Charb and Charlie Hebdo's recent cover, I'd rather die laughing than live in the cowed, craven serf state the malign alliance of totalitarian Islam and a cowardly western leadership is building for us.​
 
I was thinking the empire of pussyfooting around extremists... this sort of pro jew and pro muslim at the same time shit- these fucks fighting over the same patch of garbage strewn sand for centuries. Hate so strong it infects those to kill who are nowhere near these battles- are unaffected in any way. Is meso france at half mast?
 
Cowards!!!


NBC News and MSNBC Join CNN in Not Showing Charlie Hebdo Cartoons
by Matt Wilstein | 5:37 pm, January 7th, 2015

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nbc-news-and-msnbc-join-cnn-in-not-showing-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/


Following CNN’s decision to refrain from showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons that could be deemed “offensive” to Muslims on air, NBC News has made a similar statement, confirming that the images will not appear on NBC News or the company’s cable channel, MSNBC.

An NBC News spokesperson said:

“Our NBC News Group Standards team has sent guidance to NBC News, MSNBC, and CNBC not to show headlines or cartoons that could be viewed as insensitive or offensive.”

Images of the cartoons in question did appear on Fox News early Wednesday morning. We have reached out to that network and will update this post accordingly with a response regarding their policy.

UPDATE — 5:55 p.m. ET: MSNBC’s Chris Hayes let it be known that he does not necessarily agree with NBC’s policy on this issue:

UPDATE — 6:22 p.m. ET: A spokesperson for Fox says the network has “no plans” to show Charlie Hebdo cartoons on air.
 
To late tonight to argue CBS. Think about it! There are a lot of "unintended consequences" for what your government does, and has been doing...for a long long time.


Yeah, those unintended consequences have been happening for 1400 years. In case you hadn't noticed, that's before the founding of the US, and Europeans were still living in mud huts.

Believe it or not, Kawilt, sometimes OTHER cultures do bad things. And sometimes WE are the victim. I know that doesn't fit with the conspiracies you usually subscribe to but it is a fact. Stop apologizing for your own culture and maybe you'll be able to look at that of others with a little more objectivity. The self-hate is getting old.
 
While I think the jihadist and extremists are a bunch of fucking morons, I don't understand why someone would go out and actively publish this kinda thing when everyone knows how butthurt and offended they get. It's one thing to not allow their 'sharia law' to infect our society (that is bravery), but mocking their deity (however strange and foreign it might be) is exactly that, stupid.
 
While I think the jihadist and extremists are a bunch of fucking morons, I don't understand why someone would go out and actively publish this kinda thing when everyone knows how butthurt and offended they get. It's one thing to not allow their 'sharia law' to infect our society (that is bravery), but mocking their deity (however strange and foreign it might be) is exactly that, stupid.


 
Islamic extremists are fucking scumbags! There is no excuse for them. This blame America bullshit is just that complete bullshit! The Islamic extremists are just a bunch of fucking whiners because Israel kicks the ever loving shit out of them every time they get froggy! How many times has Israel defended itself against a Muslim country and captured huge swaths of land only to give it back?
 
While I think the jihadist and extremists are a bunch of fucking morons, I don't understand why someone would go out and actively publish this kinda thing when everyone knows how butthurt and offended they get. It's one thing to not allow their 'sharia law' to infect our society (that is bravery), but mocking their deity (however strange and foreign it might be) is exactly that, stupid.
Why? Do you know in New York in some art gallery there is a picture of Jesus with shit on it? Should Christians go burn the gallery to the ground and killed every one in it? Every religion is fair game to be mocked. You don't kill people for mocking you religion and you don't make excuses for killers by saying well they shouldn't mock the profit.
 
Why? Do you know in New York in some art gallery there is a picture of Jesus with shit on it? Should Christians go burn the gallery to the ground and killed every one in it? Every religion is fair game to be mocked. You don't kill people for mocking you religion and you don't make excuses for killers by saying well they shouldn't mock the profit.
Bro don't trip man I'm not defending them. Be easy mate. What I'm saying is that knowing what everyone knows about these fucktards, would that then inspire you to go and taunt the crazy bastards? Take for example how I live in the west coast (Texas,Arizona,California) and in these states there's a lot of norco activity. Truth be told even though I know some of them, they are not very good or moral people. Does that mean I am going to challenge or offend people who have the ability to murder me? No, and I would think as sad as this was that people would have more sense.

"Speak softly but carry a big stick."
 
The Dastardly Attack in Paris
by S. Abbas Raza




On February 14, 1989, I was working as a young engineer in my office at the U.S. Department of Labor in Washington, DC, when I heard the news of Khomeini's murderous fatwa against Salman Rushdie and all the publishers of his novel The Satanic Verses. In retrospect, I am surprised by just how much the news upset me. I was unable to work and got permission to leave early and went home. It wasn't just that Salman Rushdie was one of my favorite writers, someone I consider a literary genius, and I was afraid for his safety; it was also that I knew in my gut that this was the opening salvo in what would become a massive internationalization of an Islamic war on freedom of speech and expression. After all, the government of Iran was threatening and planning to murder a British citizen, and even encouraging other Britons to murder him by putting a bounty on his head, with the enthusiastic approval of a large proportion of Muslims everywhere.

And although, thank goodness, Rushdie remains safe, the Islamists have largely been winning this war since. They have successfully intimidated a very large number of writers and artists and journalists and film-makers all over the world into silence (and many live in exile because of threats to their safety), and within Muslim countries they have in addition used blasphemy laws to persecute their enemies and basically make any discussion of religion impossible. All this while religious apologists continue to proclaim to CNN and the BBC that their religion stands only for peace. Tell that to the tens of thousands of victims of religious violence in Pakistan alone. "Oh, the number of extremists is very small; most Muslims are peace-loving people." The number of actual terrorists is always small. The problem is that too great a proportion of Muslims sympathize with these people, which is why it is impossible to eliminate them. Let us stop fooling ourselves with this nonsense. People need to stand up for free speech unequivocally, and against this barbarity, and especially Muslims need to. The battle must be joined now, in every way possible.

- See more at: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarks...dly-attack-in-paris.html#sthash.MiVWOsZ7.dpuf
 
'Religion deserves our fearless disrespect': Salman Rushdie condemns Charlie Hebdo attack as a sign of the 'deadly mutation in the heart of Islam'

http://www.englishpen.org/campaigns/salman-rushdie-condemns-attack-on-charlie-hebdo/

“Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.” –Salman Rushdie
 
Je Suis Charlie
Alex Massie 7 January 2015 14:18

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/je-suis-charlie/

It is important, today especially, to remember that this is nothing new. We have been here before. On the 11th of July, 1991, Hitoshi Igarachi was murdered in his office at the University of Tsukuba. His crime? He had translated The Satanic Verses into Japanese. That was all. Eight days previously Ettore Capriola, the novel’s Italian translator, had been fortunate to survive an attempted assassination in Milan. And in October 1993 William Nygaard, the Norweigan publisher of Salman Rushdie’s novel, was shot three times. Mercifully and remarkably, he survived.

In fact, it had begun before that. On Valentine’s Day 1989 when the Iranian Ayatollah issued his fatwa against Rushdie. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2012/09/salman-rushdie-a-hero-for-our-time/. We have learned a lot since then but in many ways we have also learned nothing at all.

In 2012, Rushdie wondered if any publisher would have the courage to endorse The Satanic Verses if it were written then. To ask the question was to sense the depressing answer. They would not. Too risky, too provocative, too inflammatory. Too insensitive. Too dangerous. Sorry, mate, but we just can’t do it. Besides, you should have known what you were doing. Weren’t you, in some vague sense, asking for all this trouble?

No. No. Thrice No. Rushdie did not ask for trouble. Trouble was thrust upon him and everyone else associated with the publication of his novel.

It is worth dwelling on this today precisely because it reminds us that this morning’s Parisian horrors cannot be blamed on George W Bush or Tony Blair or neoconservatives or anyone else. The motivation for this barbarism long pre-dates their time in office.

Doubtless some will still, even now, find a way to blame the victims. Doubtless some will do anything they can to avoid looking reality squarely in the face. Doubtless some will pretend that reality can be wished away or that responsibility can be transferred to someone, anyone, other than the perpetrators.

Shame on those people. Shame.

Doubtless, too, there will be the usual calls on all Muslims everywhere to condemn these attacks as though they bear some inchoate communal responsibility for the barbarous actions of their co-religionists. This too will be drearily predictable and familiar and, most of all, desperately unfair. Their Islam has nothing to do with this even if it is also true that other subscribers to the faith do not share their views. The platitudinous suggestion Islam is a religion of peace is evidently, abundantly, true for the vast majority of Muslims while being utterly untrue for some. And so what? Where does that leave us? Only in a state of dread that’s matched only by its inadequacy.

To say these people are motivated by a perverted form of Islam is, in the end, pointless. Because it’s not perverted for them. Quite the contrary, in fact. They are the purest of the pure, the godliest of the godly. It is the real Islam as far as they are concerned. This will happen again.

Two conflicts rage here: one between civilisation and barbarism, the other between modernity and a kind of fanaticism we’ve known in our own past. As it happens, tomorrow is the 318th anniversary of the execution of Thomas Aikenhead in Edinburgh, the last man – though really little more than a boy – to be executed for blasphemy in this country. The Church of Scotland urged his execution the better to confront “the abounding of impiety and profanity in this land”.

But understanding or otherwise appreciating the manner in which today’s Islamist terror is in some respects little different from the Covenanting horrors of our own history is, in its way, an invitation to pessimism. We might wish for modernity to conquer Islamist barbarism in like fashion to which it was uprooted in the west and yet such hopes seem destined to be disappointed, not least since Islamist terror is direct repudiation of modernity.

Which in turns leaves us with little room for hope, little reason to expect that this story will change. It is a war, of sorts, in which we trust that reason can somehow – eventually – conquer a rejection of reason. This seems a forlorn hope today.

But what else can we do? Only, perhaps, this. We can hold the line. We can make our stand, a stand for liberalism and reason and liberty and we can hope – however flickeringly – that this will, in time, be enough to prevail.

Je suis Charlie? In truth, I don’t know about that. I hope so. But, really, I don’t know if enough of us are Charlie Hebdo just as I know too few of us were prepared, 25 years ago, to say I am Salman. But there is no longer either the time or room to hide. If you were not Charlie Hebdo yesterday it is time, today, that you were.

That’s our faith. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-is-an-attack-on-freedom/. For otherwise what – and who – are we?
 
Freedom of speech is proving to be one of the most important rights in human history. Hell, it's basically the reason we're all here. It's extremely sad what is happening. These people think they are doing God's work by killing innocent people and terrorizing freedom. RIP to all the victims....
 
Yeah, those unintended consequences have been happening for 1400 years. In case you hadn't noticed, that's before the founding of the US, and Europeans were still living in mud huts.

Believe it or not, Kawilt, sometimes OTHER cultures do bad things. And sometimes WE are the victim. I know that doesn't fit with the conspiracies you usually subscribe to but it is a fact. Stop apologizing for your own culture and maybe you'll be able to look at that of others with a little more objectivity. The self-hate is getting old.
CBS...I am not apologizing for the western culture..you have misinterpreted the meaning of my post. I am not talking about conspiracy theories. Yes cultures are different, sometimes very different. If you keep mixing this country with every other culture on this planet you are going to have a shit load of problems, as you can see. People don't change their cultures CBS, it is an integral part of who they are. To be objective my friend, you have to climb out the box you live in and be aware of wha'ts going on around you
 
Just because some people behead a person for the world to see on television doesn't mean the other guys are not doing something similar behind the scenes. Where land, power and money involved there is not many good guys. IMHO
 
While I think the jihadist and extremists are a bunch of fucking morons, I don't understand why someone would go out and actively publish this kinda thing when everyone knows how butthurt and offended they get. It's one thing to not allow their 'sharia law' to infect our society (that is bravery), but mocking their deity (however strange and foreign it might be) is exactly that, stupid.
Yea, I compare it to responding to trolls on a forum. Not only is it a waste of time arguing against what everyone already knows is BS, but you risk having the troll follow you around the forum attacking all your posts.
 

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top