Another tragedy – the Tamil writer Perumal Murugan has decided to withdraw all his books and never write again after being bullied by Hindutva groups.

A week after the police advised Tamil writer Perumal Murugan to leave his home in Namakkal following protests by caste- and Hindutva organisations against his book Madhorubagan, the author has announced that he will withdraw his entire body of work from publication and will never write again.

The announcement came after four hours of negotiations with the groups that had objected to the book.

“Negotiations” forsooth! What is there to negotiate?!

Last month, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh burnt copies of his novel  in Tiruchengode in Tamil Nadu on Friday, The Hindu reported, saying that parts of the book insulted the Kailasanathar temple, Shiva and female worshippers.  They claimed to be offended by the sexual permissiveness described in the book, which is set around 100 years ago at the time of an annual festival in Tiruchengode.

After repeated threats on the phone, the writer decided to flee his hometown a few days ago.

On Monday night, Murugan posted a note on his Facebook wall announcing his decision to stop writing altogether. He offered to compensate his publishers and readers if they incurred any loss and asked people to leave him alone.

Here’s a translation of that note by Aniruddhan Vasudevan – it’s heartbreaking:

Author Perumal Murugan has died. He is no god, so he is not going to resurrect himself. Nor does he believe in reincarnation. From now on, Perumal Murugan will survive merely as a teacher, as he has been.

He thanks all magazines, media, readers, friends,writers, organisations, political parties, leaders, students and anyone else who supported Perumal Murugan and upheld the freedom of expression.

The issue is not going to end with Madhorubagan. Different groups and individuals might pick up any of his books and make it a problem. Therefore, these are the final decisions that Perumal Murugan has taken:

1. Other than those books that Perumal Murugan has compiled and published on his own, he withdraws all the novels, short stories, essays and poetry he has written so far. He says with certainty that none of these books will be on sale again.

2. He requests his publishers – Kalachavadu, Natrinai, Adaiyalam, Malaigal, Kayalkavin not to sell his books. He will compensate them for their loss.

3. All those who have bought his books so far are free to burn them. If anyone feels they have incurred a waste or loss in buying his books, he will offer them a compensation.

4. He requests that he be not invited to any events from now on.

5. Since he is withdrawing all his books, he requests caste, religious, political and other groups not to engage in protests or create problems.

Please leave him alone. Thanks to everyone.

Pe. Murugan

On January 7 he wrote an eloquent defense and explanation of his work, and now he’s been driven to this.

People can be so sickening.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

If you haven’t seen enough rebarbative assholitude enough lately, there’s always Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke. The lovely man did an interview with a lovely site called The New Emangelization – see what they did there?

Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke:  I think there has been a great confusion with regard to the specific vocation of men in marriage and of men in general in the Church during the past 50 years or so. It’s due to a number of factors, but the radical feminism which has assaulted the Church and society since the 1960s has left men very marginalized.

Unfortunately, the radical feminist movement strongly influenced the Church, leading the Church to constantly address women’s issues at the expense of addressing critical issues important to men; the importance of the father, whether in the union of marriage or not; the importance of a father to children; the importance of fatherhood for priests; the critical impact of a manly character; the emphasis on the particular gifts that God gives to men for the good of the whole society.

The goodness and importance of men became very obscured, and for all practical purposes, were not emphasized at all.

Yup – men are the forgotten sex now. Why, look at the Catholic church itself! The pope is a woman, almost all the cardinals are women, most of the bishops are women, more than half of all priests are women –

Hahahaha totally kidding. The real numbers are zero, zero, zero, and zero. No Girls Allowed.

But outside the church though – yeah, there, women have stolen everything. Look at movies – it’s so hard to find a movie where a man even gets to talk, with all the women crowding them out. And in government? Corporations? Tech? Women women women, as far as the eye can see.

A child’s relationship with their father is key to a child’s self‑identification, which takes places when we are growing up. We need that very close and affirming relationship with the mother, but at the same time, it is the relationship with the father, which is of its nature more distant but not less loving, which disciplines our lives. It teaches a child to lead a selfless life, ready to embrace whatever sacrifices are necessary to be true to God and to one another.

The good cardinal seems to be confusing his religion with his memories of sitcoms from the 1950s.

I recall in the mid-1970’s, young men telling me that they were, in a certain way, frightened by marriage because of the radicalizing and self-focused attitudes of women that were emerging at that time. These young men were concerned that entering a marriage would simply not work because of a constant and insistent demanding of rights for women. These divisions between women and men have gotten worse since then.

Because marriage just can’t work unless it’s between a superior and an inferior. Equality is a non-starter.

Sadly, the Church has not effectively reacted to these destructive cultural forces; instead the Church has become too influenced by radical feminism and has largely ignored the serious needs of men.

I’ve noticed that! The church is so influenced by radical feminism – its attitude to abortion, its attitude to allowing women to be priests and bishops and cardinals and popes, its generosity toward nuns – it all adds up.

The Church becomes very feminized. Women are wonderful, of course. They respond very naturally to the invitation to be active in the Church. Apart from the priest, the sanctuary has become full of women. The activities in the parish and even the liturgy have been influenced by women and have become so feminine in many places that men do not want to get involved.

Men are often reluctant to become active in the Church. The feminized environment and the lack of the Church’s effort to engage men has led many men to simply opt out.

That’s a pleasant way of seeing things – that if there are more women around, men will be so grossed out that they’ll leave. Thanks, Card.

Aspects of the Church’s life that emphasized the man‑like character of devotion and sacrifice have been deemphasized. Devotions that required time and effort were simply abandoned. Everything became so easy and when things are easy, men don’t think it is worth the effort.

Ah and women are lazy, too.

That’s enough Cardinal for me for the moment.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Tina Nguyen at Medialite reports on the photographic obliteration of women who had the temerity to be visible in the Paris march on Sunday. These brazen hussies were merely the chancellor of Germany and the mayor of Paris and the EU foreign policy chief, so what the hell did they think they were doing out there with the grown-ups?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Here’s the YouTube video of extracts from the Charlie Hebdo press conference.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyDIX-dNf5E

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Telegraph has clips from a press conference in which the Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Luz describes his thinking about the cover for the January 14th issue.

I invoked all the talents of the magazine, all those who were not there any more, all those were still there, I said to myself, we must do a drawing that above all makes us laugh, and not one on the emotional charge we are victims of.

I had the idea of drawing this character of Mohammed, as it’s my character, because he existed, at least in people’s hearts, and in any case he exists when I draw him.

He is a character that got our offices burned, and a character who at first got us treated as the great white knights of the freedom of the press because the offices had burned down. Then a year later when we redrew the character we were treated as dangerous provocative and irresponsible. So this character led us to be called either white knights or provocateurs, whereas we are above all cartoonists who draw little people like children do.

The terrorists were once kids, they drew like us, like all kids, then one day they perhaps lost their sense of humour, perhaps their child soul able to see the world from a bit of a distance, because that’s Charlie – being able to draw the world from a small distance.

“Kids” is “gamins” – which is a much nicer word than “kids” if you ask me. The part where he says that is very affecting, as are other parts.

The only idea left was to draw Mohammed, I am Charlie. Then I looked at him, he was crying. Then above, I wrote: “All is forgiven”, and then cried. We had the front page, we had finally found this bloody front page. This was our front page.

This was not the front page the world wanted us to draw, it was our front page.

This is not the front page that the terrorists want us to draw, as there are no terrorists in it, just a man who cries: it’s Mohammed. I am sorry that we drew him again, but the Mohammed we drew is a Mohammed who is crying above all.

A Mohammed who is a human being, a mensch, not a murdering hate-machine. That’s probably not historically accurate but it’s a million times more generous than it had to be.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Libération reports on Charlie Hebdo’s exile at Libération and the process of putting together the January 14 issue.

They were working in a rush in a new space and without most of their own equipment, not to mention all the emotional turmoil. There are a bunch of potential covers tacked up on the wall for consideration.

Une très bonne nouvelle, quand même : plusieurs dessins de Riss (touché dans la fusillade et hospitalisé) sont arrivés, avec un jugement esthétique en forme de diagnostic : «Ah ben, ça va, il tremble de moins en moins.»

One piece of very good news, all the same: several cartoons by Riss (wounded in the attack and hospitalized) arrived and got a verdict that was both aesthetic and medical: “Oh great, progress, he’s shaking less and less.”

And then.

Vers 21 h 30, un petit bout de papier passe de main en main, et déclenche des cris, des rires et des applaudissements. Le rédacteur en chef Gérard Biard prend Luz dans ses bras, qui s’effondre. Après des heures d’essais, de déprime, de passages à vide, le dessin de une est validé. Le Prophète est Charlie.

Toward 9:30 p.m., a little scrap of paper is passed around, and sets off exclamations, laughter and applause. The editor in chief Gérard Biard takes Luz in his arms, where he collapses. After hours of attempts, of depression, of bad patches, one cartoon is endorsed. The Prophet is Charlie.

As always, correct any mistakes in the translation.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

BuzzFeed has another (in addition to mine, I mean, she said modestly) useful collection of which media outlet did and which did not show the new cover of Charlie Hebdo.

1. Libération: Yes.

No surprise there, since Charlie is now working out of Libération’s office using Libération’s equipment.

2. CNN: No.

3. CBS News: Yes.

4. The Guardian: Yes.

Yes but with a warning at the top. Many points deducted.

5. Wall Street Journal: Yes.

It’s annoying when the WSJ does better than the Guardian.

6. NBC News: No.

“Doubling down” “of course risks further enraging” – a pox on you, NBC.

7. Mashable: No.

8. The Daily Beast: Yes.

9. BBC: No.

On the website, they mean. The Beeb has shown it on Newsnight and News 24 at a minimum.

10. AFP/Yahoo: Yes.

Again, no surprise there – AFP has been good on this. Notice the unapologetic forthright wording:

11. Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Yes.

USA Today yes; Business Insider yes; NPR no; Washington Post yes; New York Times no; LA Times yes; The Blaze yes; the Telegraph no; the Daily Mail no; the Huffington Post yes; Mic yes; and last…BuzzFeed, yes.

Merci, BuzzFeed.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Beeb showed the new Charlie Hebdo cover on the air again, on BBC News 24 –

The Charlie Hebdo effect.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I’m out of time, but want to make sure I draw your attention to this great post by Yemisi: The Charlie Hebdo tragedy: The five crowds that are getting it wrong.

Gotta go.

See

you

tomorrow.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A comment by Lady Mondegreen aka Stacy, originally a comment on a Facebook discussion and posted here with permish.

Ironic racism/sexism can be harmful even if the intent is good.

I think it can be–sometimes. And sometimes it can be harmful and also good.

I suspect that a young African American child reading Huckleberry Finn could suffer emotional pain reading all that raw racism. I would never dismiss that pain. Neither would I ever, ever stand with the people who think Huckleberry Finn shouldn’t be taught, should be taken off the library shelves, or should be bowlderized.

I would hope people hurt by Twain’s ironic racism (for example) would, if they don’t get the context, have it explained to them. Having it explained wouldn’t take away all the pain. But the true cause of that pain is not in the irony. It is not in the representation of the problem.The cause is in the bigotry itself, its effects on society.

I’m starting to suspect there’s some shoot-the-messenger going on here. It’s like looking in a mirror, seeing a dangerous troll is standing behind you, and getting mad at the mirror. Maybe it’s a form of displacement. I feel pretty powerless to do much about all the hatred and bigotry in the world, but if I can displace my indignation onto a smaller target, I can feel like I’ve done something (and I’ve signalled that I stand against bigotry.)
Satire is a mirror. It reflects terrible things, sometimes.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Oh jeez – something I didn’t know – Caroline Fourest is a senior editor of Charlie Hebdo. NBC News talked to her.

A senior editor at Charlie Hebdo says she’s living a nightmare that she could never have prepared for despite years of threats against the magazine.

Caroline Fourest, who has contributed to the satirical magazine for years, told NBC News that she and the staff are working through their shock after the attack, and will show the world they will not be silenced.

…

Fourest told NBC News that the editorial staff had been debating cartoons to demonstrate the scope of racism against Muslims in France. That made the attack, an apparent act of revenge for insulting Islam, even harder to believe.

It makes the accusations of racism from ignorant Americans hard to believe, too.

Fourest said that the survivors are “of course” in shock but determined to put out the next issue, scheduled for Wednesday, and to show the world that they are not afraid. Continuing to publish will send the message that while “you can kill our friends, you cannot kill freedom of speech,” she said.

She defended the magazine’s caricatures, saying that they took aim without favoring any religion, and she asked other media to print the very cartoons for which Cherif and Said Kouachi sought revenge.

…

While Fourest said she has nothing to say to the killers, she appeared to take solace in how their plans backfired. A unity rally on Sunday became the largest demonstration in modern French history, and “Je Suis Charlie” has become a rallying cry around the world.

“They try to kill Charlie Hebdo, they make Charlie Hebdo the most famous newspaper in the world,” she said. “How stupid they are.”

The Streisand effect will have to be re-named the Charlie effect.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Other media are showing the new Charlie Hebdo cover though.

The Chicago Sun Times.

ABC (Australia).

This week’s publication, the first issue of the French satirical weekly since last Wednesday’s deadly attack in Paris, will be offered in 16 languages.

The surviving members of the magazine prepared the edition in the offices of French newspaper Liberation, which said three million copies would be printed.

“Charlie Hebdo will be in kiosks this Wednesday, January 14. Like it is every week,” Liberation said.

“The journalists of the weekly publication finished it at around 21.30 on Monday.”

Business Insider.

The first cover of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo after a terrorist shooting at its Paris headquarters has been revealed. As expected, the cover defiantly features the Prophet Muhammed, in response to the radical Muslim gunmen’s efforts to silence the often controversial magazine.

The Guardian – but with a warning at the top.

Warning: this article contains the image of the magazine cover, which some may find offensive.

The front cover of Wednesday’s edition of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the first since last week’s attack on its offices which left 12 people dead, is a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad.

The cover shows the prophet shedding a tear and holding up a sign reading “Je suis Charlie” in sympathy with the dead journalists. The headline says “all is forgiven”.

The two gunmen who launched the attack on the magazine’s offices last Wednesday killed five of the country’s top cartoonists, saying that they wanted to avenge the prophet for Charlie Hebdo’s satire of him.

The grieving journalists who survived the murderous assault promised it would be business as usual at the weekly publication.

A record 3m copies are to be printed, in 16 languages, after the massacre triggered a worldwide debate on free speech and brought more than 4m people on to the streets of France in a unity march on Sunday.

They should have left the warning off.

The eight-page edition went to the presses on Monday night, according to Libération, the newspaper which offered Charlie Hebdo staff temporary working space following the attack.

The cover cartoon was drawn by the weekly’s cartoonist Luz who survived the massacre because he was late arriving at the office.

Then they do what I’m doing – give a rundown of some other media who show the cover.

Newspapers around Europe, including Libération, Le Figaro and Frankfurter Allgemeine have used the image online. The BBC showed it briefly during a newspaper review on Newsnight. In the US, USA Today and the LA Times ran the cover but the New York Times did not. The Guardian – which has not published other Charlie Hebdo covers with images representing the prophet – is running this cover as its news value warrants publication.

Good, and yes it does, but they should have skipped the warning.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

So the cover of the next Charlie Hebdo appeared on Newsnight, but it doesn’t appear in the story on the BBC website. The story’s headline is “Charlie Hebdo’s latest edition to depict Prophet Muhammad” but the depiction itself is absent. No depiction for you.

The cover of the latest edition of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been published in French media, and depicts the Prophet Muhammad.

The cover shows the Prophet holding a sign reading “I am Charlie”, below the words “all is forgiven”.

The magazine’s lawyer Richard Malka told French radio earlier that it was important to show that staff would “cede nothing” to extremists.

As always with these things…it doesn’t really “show the prophet” – it shows a crude cartoon of a guy in a turban. The cover doesn’t label him “Muhammed.” It’s all very abstract, as always.

But in any case – the BBC doesn’t show it in this story talking about it. So much for the idea that it’s important to show that nobody is ceding anything to the murderers. (They’re not “extremists.” They’re murderers.)

The slogan “Je suis Charlie” or “I am Charlie” was widely used following Wednesday’s attack on the magazine, as people sought to show their support.

Three million copies of Wednesday’s edition are being printed. Normally only 60,000 are available each week.

Mr Malka told France Info radio: “We will not give in. The spirit of ‘I am Charlie’ means the right to blaspheme.”

Survivors of the massacre have been working on the magazine from the offices of another French title, Liberation.

Five of Charlie Hebdo’s top cartoonists were killed in the attack.

The new edition will be created “only by people from Charlie Hebdo”, its financial director, Eric Portheault, told AFP news agency.

Contributions from other cartoonists were declined.

Here’s the cover again, in case you’re missing it already.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Newsnight showed the new Charlie Hebdo cover. Andrew Copson took a picture.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Daily Kos has a great collection of cartoons by Cabu for Charlie Hebdo – anti-racism cartoons to be specific.

Below are cartoons drawn over the past several decades by Cabu, one of the most emblematic cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo (if not the most). Cabu was murdered along with his colleagues this past week. He was 75 years old.

Although no media outlet in the US will show you these images, they can all be found online with a simple Google search.

“No to racist identity checks.”

That’s Jean-Marie Le Pen of the Front National, saying “We want to be able to go out at night without being afraid!” He doesn’t mean without being afraid of white supremacist gangs armed with clubs.

See Daily Kos for the rest.

H/t Kausik

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Charlie Klendjian has an eloquent blast of fury at all the what-abouttery and they-were-racistsism over the past five days.

Over the last five days I have listened patiently to the most extraordinarily confused and painful discussions on the rights and wrongs of murdering people who draw cartoons. What an odd response our public discourse has generated towards what is, to my mind at least, a moral issue of the most blinding clarity.

It is to me too, but it might not be. If Charlie Hebdo had been an unquestionably racist xenophobic immigrant-bashing magazine, affiliated with a far-right organization and running editorials demanding expulsions and closed borders – then the moral issue would not be so blindingly clear; not to me. I would agree that people who drew cartoons for such a magazine shouldn’t be murdered, but I would not express any kind of solidarity with them. I wouldn’t consider them colleagues or allies. I wouldn’t mourn them.

But that’s not the case. That makes all the difference.

The one free speech scenario which is the most relevant here (and it’s blasphemy, just in case you’ve already forgotten), seems to be the one everyone is now discussing the least.

I’m starting to get the impression people don’t want to talk about the problem facing us. And that, to me, is a big part of the problem.

I have heard the most exquisitely manicured theories about “marginalisation” and “stigmatisation” and I have heard dissertations about conditions in French suburbs, and also about foreign policy – even though the attackers themselves left us in no doubt about the motives for their savagery by announcing proudly that they had avenged their prophet, just before speeding away in a car for their date with death a couple of days later at the hands of French commandos.

And who else would get that sort of treatment if the Kouachi brothers had had the power? Muslims. Muslims who weren’t of exactly the right kind, Muslims who opposed IS, Muslims who didn’t want people like the Kouachi brothers in authority over them.

I have also heard endless discussions about whether the magazine Charlie Hebdo and its noble cartoonists were “racist”. This is nothing new or unsurprising. A discussion about any aspect of Islam is simply not possible without a discussion about racism. The default assumption when criticising Islam is that you are a racist, and it is up to you to prove a negative: that you are not racist. It is not up to the person making the accusation to produce any evidence of racism. For those of us who are still alive, being subject to this reverse-burden-of-proof is highly annoying, intimidating, time-consuming, exhausting and potentially career-ending – and that is its purpose. But then at least we’re still alive to defend ourselves from the smears.

Yes. That is a luxury and a privilege.

Even if we assume for a moment that the cartoonists were racist – and I have seen no evidence whatsoever that they were – this changes things not one jot. In a secular liberal democracy, holding and expressing unpleasant views is not punishable by the contents of an AK-47 anyway. If that were the case then there would be some very nervous imams, “scholars” and “community leaders” in the UK that I can think of.

Well, again, for me it does change things several jots – that is, it would if we assumed it for a moment. It would change things. Of course it wouldn’t change the fact that in secular liberal democracy, holding and expressing unpleasant views is not punishable by death, but it would change my attitude to and feelings about the people killed.

I’m not good at isolating the principle of free speech and defending it no matter what. I’m not good at being consistent in that way. I can easily defend the principle that racism should not be punished by murder, but that’s a separate issue. The issue is one of solidarity: I am in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo, and I would not be in solidarity with a far-right racist xenophobic counterpart.

There are problems with failing to be consistent on this, because it can equate to just carving out exceptions for one’s own pet category, and if everyone does that, so much for free speech. I’ve never found any solution to this problem.

The endless discussions about the cartoonists’ alleged “racism” have generated an elaborate sideshow and also smeared the memory of some tremendously brave and inspirational individuals. These individuals were valiantly holding the line for free speech, and therefore for freedom itself, on behalf of everyone. Their bodies are barely cold. These people have been sold out in the most spectacular fashion. What a way to honour their bravery.

No well-informed commentator is making the case for completely limitless free speech. Even in mature, secular democracies like our own free speech does of course have its limits. But the point here is that one of those limits is not and must never be “offence”, so any discussion of whether the cartoons were offensive is completely pointless anyway. Nor is one of those limits whether someone might shoot you or hurl a bomb through your office window because they don’t like what you say.

That I agree with, no quibbles.

Condemning murder is the easy part. Any fool can do that. The hard part, for far too many people, is affirming the right to free speech – specifically the right to cause offence and in this case to depict Mohammed. Hashtags and strongly-worded condemnations and marches and selfies and calls for “solidarity” are all well and good, but they are the bare minimum we should expect. If people are not also willing to unequivocally defend – and actually physically exercise – the right to depict Mohammed then it’s all a bit #hollow.

Is that an imam on the cover of a book I co-wrote? Or is it Mohammed himself? Hard to be sure – photographs of Mo are so scarce.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Ah, Fox News. As an American, I apologize to the world for Fox News. (Or should I demand that Australians apologize to us?) An actual news organization, the BBC, reports on a faux pas from yesterday.

An American terrorism commentator has apologised for describing Birmingham as a “Muslim-only city” where non-Muslims “don’t go” during a Fox News interview.

Steven Emerson told the channel that in London “Muslim religious police” beat “anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire”.

He later issued an apology for his “terrible error”.

His comments have come in for ridicule, with the hashtag #FoxNewsFacts trending on Twitter.

Ridicule? Can you do that? Someone might misunderstand.

On social media, Mr Emerson has been the butt of jokes, while he has been accused of “speaking nonsense” by people posting on his investigative website.

One Twitter user said: “As someone born and raised in Birmingham, I must admit there was a pressure to read the Kerrang.”

“I was supposed to go to Birmingham last week but I forgot my passport,” said another.

Risky, very risky. People might actually start canceling trips to Birmingham because of these tweets.

The Guardian’s Simon Ricketts on #FoxNewsFacts

I was at home and the video of the Fox News “expert” Steve Emerson had popped up on my Twitter feed and people were rightly expressing their disbelief at what he had said.

I thought it might be funny to counteract the anger with silliness, so I wrote a tweet and stuck the hashtag (#FoxNewsFacts) on it.

Sometimes the best response to such nonsense is satire and mockery, rather than anger and outrage.

It is? I thought responding to nonsense with satire and mockery was racist and colonialist and bad.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The BBC reports that Nigeria estimates the body count in Baga as 150, not 2000 or “hundreds” as it reported over the weekend.

150 of course is still a large number of people, and then of course Nigeria has a motive to undercount…

The defence ministry said this figure included “many of the terrorists” who had attacked the town in Borno state and faced resistance by troops.

Local officials earlier estimated the number of deaths at as many as 2,000.

Nigeria has often been accused of underestimating casualty figures to downplay the threat of Boko Haram.

And, one would assume, to minimize Nigeria’s own culpability in totally failing to protect its own citizens.

The ministry dismissed higher estimates for deaths at Baga, in north-east Nigeria, as “speculation and conjecture” and “exaggerated”.

It said the army was taking “necessary actions” to restore law and order there, but gave few details about the operation to recapture the town from the Islamist insurgents.

Nice of it to take “necessary actions” after the town has been demolished.

Earlier, the Catholic Archbishop of Jos, in central Nigeria, accused the West of ignoring the threat posed by Boko Haram.

Ignatius Kaigama said the world had to show more determination to halt the group’s advance in Nigeria.

His warning came after at least 23 people were killed at the weekend by three female suicide bombers, one reported to be 10 years old.

Religion of peace.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The BBC provides a 2 minute video of the Paris march and others in Rio, Moscow, Berlin, and London.

Via Twitter –

Tim ‏@Beertheist 5 minutes ago
The Simpsons’ ending tonight. #JeSuisCharlie

Lea’s Album ‏@GleeIsAllINeed 2h
Just for this gesture she deserves all the awards.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)