In an earlier post Defending Ngeh's Tweet on provocative film I commented on the hypocrisy of the West, in their constant bleating about freedom of expressions and speech BUT in the same breath reneging on such so-called claims of free expressions and speech when it comes to criticisms on anything Jewish.
I posted several glaring examples of such Western hypocrisy but an example I forgot to include has been the French magazine Charlie Hebdo's publishing (by Wednesday tomorrow) of cartoons of Prophet Mohammad, following the Muslim World's protests against an anti-Islam film by Sam Bacile or Nakoula Basseley (or allegedly/purportedly the man behind it all, Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Centre).
The French Foreign Minister was pissed off with the magazine's proposed publications and stated "In France, there is a principle of freedom of expression, which should not be undermined. In the present context, given this absurd video that has been aired, strong emotions have been awakened in many Muslim countries. Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?"
Charlie Hebdo's director, Stephane Charbonnier, pompously claimed that his magazine was not really fuelling the (angry Muslim) fire but rather using its (that thick-skinned hypocritical claim again) 'freedom of expression' to comment on the news in a satirical way. Its editor responded to the French ministerial rebuke: "We do caricatures of everyone, and above all every week, and when we do it with the Prophet, it's called provocation."
'Freedom of expression'?
But then, can Charlie Hebdo please explain why its former cartoonist Siné (real name Maurice Sinet) was sacked in 2008 for his cartoon-article on the marriage of Jean Sakorzy, the son of France former president, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, a Jewish heiress, after a (obviously) Jewish journalist described Sinet's comments as anti-Semitic.
The mayor of Paris and the French Minister for Culture immediately jumped on the bandwagon of European cringe towards anything Jewish to condemn Sinet.
Now, what was it that Sinet wrote of young Sakorzy that was considered so offensive to Jews?
Sinet said of the young bridegroom: "He'll go a long way in life, this lad!"
Whether Sinet was referring to the heiress' wealth or Jewish heritage was not known but regardless, please tell me, how was it anti-Semitic?
Nonetheless, it was immediately seized upon as an anti-Semitic insult. It was an European salutary lesson that no one must ever question or criticize or even, as in Sinet's case, make a remark about a Jew (unless it's complimentary or respectful), regardless of the veracity of the issue. Author David Irving found that out when he was jailed for questioning the Holocaust figures on Jews killed by Nazis (not the Holocaust itself).
Compare Sinet's comment on that marriage to the deliberate insult to Prophet Mohammad by way of cartoons.
Now, surely the next part must be the ultimate in western hypocrisy, the breath-sucking balls-squeezing Mother of all European hypocrisy.
The editor of Charlie Hebdo, Phillippe Val, the man who made the highly controversial and inflammatory decision to re-publish a Danish newspaper's cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed two years earlier in the name of (yes, that old West most hypocritical claim) ‘freedom of the press’, agreed that Sinet’s remark about young Sakorzy was offensive and anti-Semitic and warned the journalist-cartoonist to write a letter of apology or be fired.
Freedom of the press? Where was it? Liberté d'expression? Où était-ce?
I wonder what is French for ‘You f* hypocrite’!
Anyway, Sinet gave him two fingers and replied he would rather "cut his own balls off". He was promptly fired by Charlie Hebdo but sued the publisher and won a 40,000-euro court judgment for wrongful job termination.
Incidentally he was also threatened by the Jewish Defence League (JDL) which posted on its website "20 centimetres of stainless steel in the gut, that should teach the bastard to stop and think" - f*, just for commenting that Jean Sakorzy will go a long way in life because of his marriage?
So don’t think only Muslims are given to violent thoughts.
So why are Malaysian Muslims particularly UMNO and PAS political leaders continuing to dance to the tune of Zionists pulling the strings behind those deliberate insults to Islam?
Surely it's not for their own political interests? If so, then the hypocrisy would be equally breath-taking.