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.)
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.
(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.)
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.)
Via Anonymous:
Anonymous @AnonRRD 10m10 minutes ago
#CharlieHebdo: Cartoonists across the world are uniting against bloodshed and violence. pic.twitter.com/hjWhzvGChF
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Paris tonight. What a pic. @akhbar #CharlieHebdo
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Nick Cohen in the Spectator quotes the (paywalled) Financial Times on Charlie Hebdo:
Charlie Hebdo is a bastion of the French tradition of hard-hitting satire. It has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling Muslims.
Two years ago the magazine published a 65-page strip cartoon book portraying the Prophet’s life. And this week it gave special coverage to Soumission (“Submission”), a new novel by Michel Houellebecq, the idiosyncratic author, which depicts France in the grip of an Islamic regime led by a Muslim president.
This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims.
This is not to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion, it’s merely to say that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. Or, to put it another way, it’s not to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion, it’s merely to say that no one should actually use that freedom of expression. You can have it, if you insist, but you can’t avail yourself of it.
Nick’s comment is acidic:
Does the Financial Times have subeditors? Did no one spot that, having begun by saying that it does not want to condone murder, the Financial Times moved in two sentences to saying that Charlie Hebdo’s satirists have provoked their own deaths. Apparently, they ‘purport’ to believe in freedom of speech – the hypocrites. If only they had had the ‘common sense’ not to ‘provoke’ clerical fascism, then clerical fascists would not have come for them.
Surely that’s enough “freedom” for anyone.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The Australian shares some cartoons in response to the murders at Charlie Hebdo.
David Pope’s is sharp.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Taslima has a connection to Charlie Hebdo.
Charlie Hebdo has been supporting my freedom of expression. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Charlie-Hebdo-N-120-Taslima-Nasreen-au-pays-/290593052613 …
Check it out – she’s on the cover of issue 120.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
More photos, via a reply to a tweet of Taslima’s.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Via Agence France-Presse on Twitter –
People hold signs reading “I am Charlie” at the Place de la Republique in Paris.
#Photo by Joel Saget#CharlieHebdo
Many many people.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Salman Rushdie made a statement. Via the Wall Street Journal:
“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
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
