1:00PM Jan 13, 2015
Charlie Hebdo - an onion that needs to be peeled
COMMENT We must look at the Charlie Hebdo incident as of two seemingly interconnected but in reality separate issues.
Precisely because of this, I have to call what happened in Paris on Jan 7, 2015 as an ‘incident’ (and not yet a terrible tragedy), at least until we can separate the two issues and examine each carefully and objectively without being swept or stampeded mindlessly into emotional outpourings of sympathy and solidarity with the French language news weekly as we have seen in the recent ‘Je suis Charlie’ march involving millions of Europeans and their overseas supporters.
The two issues would be firstly, the massacre of 19 people in Paris (12 at Charlie Hebdo’s office) and secondly (and as I will show, separately) the claimed ‘freedom of expression’ by the magazine.
Let us deal with the sad part, that of the indiscriminate merciless killing of 19 people. Some people includingMalaysiakini’s regular contributor, Royal Malaysian Navy’s retired commander S Thayaparan, chose to highlight what had stood out uniquely, that of the Islamist terrorists killing a Muslim police officer. Apart from the fact that Islamist militants had killed Muslims on so many occasions and in so many countries (eg Indonesia versus the Jemaah Islamiah) I find this identification of a victim’s religious affiliation or even ethnic grouping as regrettable.
Does the religion or race of the victims of such a senseless wanton murder matter, unless the aim had been to show that the Muslim murderers were ruthless, indiscriminate in their act of evil and undeserving of considerations in killing a fellow Muslim?
Talking about senseless, wanton murders where the murderers had been ruthless, indiscriminate in their act of evil and thus undeserving of considerations, let us look at another instance of multiple killings, in Gaza on Aug 19, 2014, when the Israeli authorities sent a F-16 fighter jet to launch a missile to extra-judicially kill Mohammed Deif in his house, but which instead murdered his 27-year-old wife Widad, seven-month-old son Ali and three-year-old daughter Sarah, plus three other residents in the building.
Je suis Widad? Je suis Ali? Je suis Sarah? Non? Pourquoi pas? No? Why not? And nauseatingly (if I may borrow Khairy Jamaluddin’s expression) we saw Benjamin Netanyahu marching alongside the French, German and other European leaders in the ‘Je suis Charlie’ rally.
Oppressor of the Palestinian people
For those who may not know, Netanyahu is the prime minister of Israel, the oppressor of the Palestinian people, ghettoising the Arabs in the world’s largest prison called Gaza, and also restricting them in another controlled enclave, the West Bank.
There must be no ‘ifs’ or ‘buts’ when it comes to the absolute necessity for humanity to resoundingly condemn acts of evil, as had been the case at the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris, and indeed also in the case of the horrendous slaughter of Mohammed Deif’s family in Gaza on Aug 19 last year.
We should also re-examine the illegal boarding on the high sea of the MV Mavi Marmara, when Israeli commandos murdered several Turkish protesters, as well as the war crimes perpetuated in the Israeli Ops Cast Lead and the 2006 wanton bombings of Lebanon, both of which saw the frightful slaughters of women, children and babies.
And let us not forget the extra-judicial executions by the Unied States, through their killer drones of so-called ‘suspected’ terrorists, invariably with collateral murder of innocent civilian, nor of the unnecessary killings by the American-led coalition of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, including and especially civilians, women, babies, during the illegal attacks and invasion of Iraq without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council.
Non? Are we then going to be ‘Je suis Dunno’?
Let us move and examine the second issue in the Paris incident, that of the absolute need to defend the European’s cherished ‘freedom of expression’. In his Malaysiakini article titled ‘The value of Charlie Hebdo’ Thayaparan wrote, “Already there is talk of the limits of free speech in the Western context and those very ideals that Charlie Hebdo fought to maintain in its own sometimes crude way, are being challenged again.”
Well, let me disabuse our dear retired naval commander of both notions: firstly, freedom of expression in Europe has been a fable, a myth rich with double standards hypocrisy, and I will come to this shortly. Secondly, freedom of expression is an ideal, but only if truly practised, without double standards or cherry picking. Thus, to claim that Charlie Hebdo has fought to maintain these ideals would be to wear horse blinkers, either out of ignorance or refusal to see the truth.
Charlie Hebdo brooked no discerning views
From Wikipedia, we learn that in 2000, the magazine sacked its journalist Mona Chollet after she protested against a Philippe Val article which called Palestinians "non-civilised". Obviously Charlie Hebdo brooked no discerning views. Val Philippe went on to be director of publications. But wait, there is worse to tell.
In 2008 Charlie Hebdo sacked its cartoonist Siné (real name Maurice Sinet) for his cartoon-article on the marriage of Jean Sakorzy, the son of France former president, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, a heiress.
Let’s leave aside the much-touted (and indeed nauseating) French ‘liberté d'expression’ for the moment and ask, what was it that Sinet wrote of young Sakorzy that was considered so offensive as to merit a sacking after he refused to apologise when ordered by the then editor, Val Philippe?
Sinet said of the young bridegroom: "He'll go a long way in life, this lad!" Now, could that just be Sinet referring to Sakorzy Junior’s future prospects in marrying a very rich woman?
But unfortunately for both Sinet and the French ‘liberté d'expression’, Jessica Sebaoun-Darty was not only a heiress but a Jewish heiress. Sinet’s cheeky words galvanized a journalist to accuse the comment as anti-Semitic. Now, 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, trust politicians to jump on the bandwagon, where then mayor of Paris and French Minister for Culture immediately seized upon Sinet’s cartoon-article as an anti-Semitic insult.
No cheeky remark about a Jew!
That was an European salutary lesson that no one must ever question or criticise or even, as in Sinet's case, make a cheeky remark about a Jew regardless of the veracity of the issue (unless it's complimentary or respectful). But please, compare Sinet's comment on that marriage to the deliberate vile and abusive insult to Prophet Muhammad by way of the magazine’s cartoons.
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 Muhammed two years earlier in the name of ‘freedom of the press’ (loud, maniacal laughter but with a feeling of awful nausea) and whose article in 2000 calling Palestinians "non-civilised" resulted in journalist Mona Chollet being sacked after she had protested against that racist abuse, 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.
Naturally Sinet refused, as his rights under the French much cherished ‘liberté d'expression’. He asserted his rights with some rather flamboyant flowery flaming words, as a cartoonist would, that he would rather "cut his own balls off". He was promptly fired by Charlie Hebdo, the so-called paragon of freedom of expression.
Though Sinet successfully sued the publisher and won a 90,000 euro court judgment for wrongful job termination, I need to ask my dear Thayaparan: was Sinet’s sacking for standing by his cartoon-article the ideals that Charlie Hebdo fought to maintain?
Incidentally, Sinet 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". The JDL had been considered by the FBI as the second most active terrorist group.
Just wee specks of Western hypocrisy
But those happenings at Charlie Hebdo, the sacking of Sinet and Mona Chollet for merely exercising their rights to ‘freedom of expression’ were but wee specks in the bigger picture of Western hypocrisy on their so-called freedom of expression.
Recall Prince Harry of Wales? In 2006, then only a young 22-year-old, he went to a fancy dress party wearing a swastika armband. He was widely castigated for that. Lord Janner, a senior figure in Britain's Jewish community, said, "What Harry did was both stupid and evil.”
Evil? I have seen 'Dracula', 'Liberace', 'Stalin', 'Peter Pan', 'Hitler', 'Moses', 'Tojo' and even a 'George Bush' at fancy dress parties, all winning at least a laugh or two. But the ruckus evoked from such an innocuous incident by an unsuspecting youth was so great that not only the young royalty was forced into apologising (for what evil?) but also panicked his father, the future King of England into issuing abject apologies and explanations of how silly his son had been, with British ministers wading in, all stumbling forward to prostrate themselves before the Gods of their guilt.
Freedom of expression? Thayaparan, your “Already there is talk of the limits of free speech in the Western context” happened years and years ago, though admittedly not to vile, villainous and vicious abuses against Islam.
Oh, don’t forget David Irving and Ken Livingstone, too. Livingstone was the mayor of London and this was what an Australian newspaper, Sydney Morning Herald, reported on what happened to him in February 2006:
London's feisty mayor Livingstone was suspended for a month on Friday for comparing a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard, a verdict the mayor said struck "at the heart of democracy”.
A three-person panel, which hears complaints against local authorities, ruled in a case brought by a Jewish group that Livingstone, 60, had brought his office into disrepute. It ordered him suspended for four weeks from March 1.
"Three members of a body that no one has ever elected should not be allowed to overturn the votes of millions of Londoners," Livingstone said in a statement. "This decision strikes at the heart of democracy. Elected politicians should only be able to be removed by the voters or for breaking the law."
David Irving, was jailed by Austria for questioning some matters on the Jewish Holocaust. Personally I think he's a joke. Some say he's a racist with extreme right-wing leanings, but I think he is an opportunistic bloke who made his living by writing for the taste of a fringe right-wing neo-Nazi-ish sector.
I have never read Irving’s books (though I have heard of them) and I don't intend to. Well, Irving has been banned from entering Germany, Austria, Australia and Canada. Holocaust denying is a crime in Germany and Austria. Freedom of expression? What happened to that cherished Western institution then?
Christian Fleck, a sociologist at the Austrian University of Graz, has been for freedom of speech, arguing against the trial of David Irving. Fleck said that with people like Irving, one should use argument and not the law against them.
Fleck argued: “Are we really afraid of someone whose views on the past are palpable nonsense, at a time when every schoolchild knows of the horrors of the Holocaust? Are we saying his ideas are so powerful we can't argue with him? Irving is a fool. And the best way of dealing with fools is to ignore them. By outlawing such opinions, inevitably we give them the frisson of the banned. We run the risk of turning them into an attractive proposition."
But Professor Hajo Funke, a German historian, disagreed, saying that Irving must be put on trial. Funke explained: "In Germany and in Austria, there is a moral obligation to fight the kind of propaganda peddled by Irving. We can't afford the luxury of the Anglo-Saxon freedom of speech argument in this regard.”
Now you may find it strange if I were to say I agree with Professor Hajo Funke. Besides Jews, there is no one more sympathetic to Jews against Holocaust Denial than a Chinese, because a typical Chinese (or Korean) would become terribly upset when Japan approves its historical revisionism which attempts to whitewash and deny its atrocities in Korea and China. I just so happen to be an ethnic Chinese.
So, fair enough, professor. I accept your hesitation about Anglo-Saxon freedom of speech (which in the first instance was never allowed to be in full bloom), but then, what about the deliberate publishing of the Prophet Muhammad's caricatures by the European media, and in the most vile, abusive and deliberately provocative manner? Shouldn’t what is good for the goose be also good for the gander?
So on the first issue of the senseless Paris massacre by a few Islamist militants, Je suis Charlie aussi (also) and I condemn those murders as I would other senseless murders of human beings, regardless of their religious or ethnic affiliations, and regardless of who have been the perpetrators.
On the second issue of the European so-called ‘freedom of expression’, if the 'Je suis Charlie' rally had about this fabled claim, I hate to say this but I have to agree with Khairy Jamaluddin's choice of word to describe it, 'nauseating', though I would not use the expression ‘Je ne suis pas Charlie’.
Instead I have a far more delightful Malaysian word for the European claim – Podah!
Precisely because of this, I have to call what happened in Paris on Jan 7, 2015 as an ‘incident’ (and not yet a terrible tragedy), at least until we can separate the two issues and examine each carefully and objectively without being swept or stampeded mindlessly into emotional outpourings of sympathy and solidarity with the French language news weekly as we have seen in the recent ‘Je suis Charlie’ march involving millions of Europeans and their overseas supporters.
The two issues would be firstly, the massacre of 19 people in Paris (12 at Charlie Hebdo’s office) and secondly (and as I will show, separately) the claimed ‘freedom of expression’ by the magazine.
Let us deal with the sad part, that of the indiscriminate merciless killing of 19 people. Some people includingMalaysiakini’s regular contributor, Royal Malaysian Navy’s retired commander S Thayaparan, chose to highlight what had stood out uniquely, that of the Islamist terrorists killing a Muslim police officer. Apart from the fact that Islamist militants had killed Muslims on so many occasions and in so many countries (eg Indonesia versus the Jemaah Islamiah) I find this identification of a victim’s religious affiliation or even ethnic grouping as regrettable.Does the religion or race of the victims of such a senseless wanton murder matter, unless the aim had been to show that the Muslim murderers were ruthless, indiscriminate in their act of evil and undeserving of considerations in killing a fellow Muslim?
Talking about senseless, wanton murders where the murderers had been ruthless, indiscriminate in their act of evil and thus undeserving of considerations, let us look at another instance of multiple killings, in Gaza on Aug 19, 2014, when the Israeli authorities sent a F-16 fighter jet to launch a missile to extra-judicially kill Mohammed Deif in his house, but which instead murdered his 27-year-old wife Widad, seven-month-old son Ali and three-year-old daughter Sarah, plus three other residents in the building.
Je suis Widad? Je suis Ali? Je suis Sarah? Non? Pourquoi pas? No? Why not? And nauseatingly (if I may borrow Khairy Jamaluddin’s expression) we saw Benjamin Netanyahu marching alongside the French, German and other European leaders in the ‘Je suis Charlie’ rally.
Oppressor of the Palestinian people
For those who may not know, Netanyahu is the prime minister of Israel, the oppressor of the Palestinian people, ghettoising the Arabs in the world’s largest prison called Gaza, and also restricting them in another controlled enclave, the West Bank.
There must be no ‘ifs’ or ‘buts’ when it comes to the absolute necessity for humanity to resoundingly condemn acts of evil, as had been the case at the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris, and indeed also in the case of the horrendous slaughter of Mohammed Deif’s family in Gaza on Aug 19 last year.
We should also re-examine the illegal boarding on the high sea of the MV Mavi Marmara, when Israeli commandos murdered several Turkish protesters, as well as the war crimes perpetuated in the Israeli Ops Cast Lead and the 2006 wanton bombings of Lebanon, both of which saw the frightful slaughters of women, children and babies.
And let us not forget the extra-judicial executions by the Unied States, through their killer drones of so-called ‘suspected’ terrorists, invariably with collateral murder of innocent civilian, nor of the unnecessary killings by the American-led coalition of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, including and especially civilians, women, babies, during the illegal attacks and invasion of Iraq without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council.Non? Are we then going to be ‘Je suis Dunno’?
Let us move and examine the second issue in the Paris incident, that of the absolute need to defend the European’s cherished ‘freedom of expression’. In his Malaysiakini article titled ‘The value of Charlie Hebdo’ Thayaparan wrote, “Already there is talk of the limits of free speech in the Western context and those very ideals that Charlie Hebdo fought to maintain in its own sometimes crude way, are being challenged again.”
Well, let me disabuse our dear retired naval commander of both notions: firstly, freedom of expression in Europe has been a fable, a myth rich with double standards hypocrisy, and I will come to this shortly. Secondly, freedom of expression is an ideal, but only if truly practised, without double standards or cherry picking. Thus, to claim that Charlie Hebdo has fought to maintain these ideals would be to wear horse blinkers, either out of ignorance or refusal to see the truth.
Charlie Hebdo brooked no discerning views
From Wikipedia, we learn that in 2000, the magazine sacked its journalist Mona Chollet after she protested against a Philippe Val article which called Palestinians "non-civilised". Obviously Charlie Hebdo brooked no discerning views. Val Philippe went on to be director of publications. But wait, there is worse to tell.
In 2008 Charlie Hebdo sacked its cartoonist Siné (real name Maurice Sinet) for his cartoon-article on the marriage of Jean Sakorzy, the son of France former president, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, a heiress.
Let’s leave aside the much-touted (and indeed nauseating) French ‘liberté d'expression’ for the moment and ask, what was it that Sinet wrote of young Sakorzy that was considered so offensive as to merit a sacking after he refused to apologise when ordered by the then editor, Val Philippe?
Sinet said of the young bridegroom: "He'll go a long way in life, this lad!" Now, could that just be Sinet referring to Sakorzy Junior’s future prospects in marrying a very rich woman?
But unfortunately for both Sinet and the French ‘liberté d'expression’, Jessica Sebaoun-Darty was not only a heiress but a Jewish heiress. Sinet’s cheeky words galvanized a journalist to accuse the comment as anti-Semitic. Now, 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, trust politicians to jump on the bandwagon, where then mayor of Paris and French Minister for Culture immediately seized upon Sinet’s cartoon-article as an anti-Semitic insult.
No cheeky remark about a Jew!
That was an European salutary lesson that no one must ever question or criticise or even, as in Sinet's case, make a cheeky remark about a Jew regardless of the veracity of the issue (unless it's complimentary or respectful). But please, compare Sinet's comment on that marriage to the deliberate vile and abusive insult to Prophet Muhammad by way of the magazine’s cartoons.
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 Muhammed two years earlier in the name of ‘freedom of the press’ (loud, maniacal laughter but with a feeling of awful nausea) and whose article in 2000 calling Palestinians "non-civilised" resulted in journalist Mona Chollet being sacked after she had protested against that racist abuse, 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.
Naturally Sinet refused, as his rights under the French much cherished ‘liberté d'expression’. He asserted his rights with some rather flamboyant flowery flaming words, as a cartoonist would, that he would rather "cut his own balls off". He was promptly fired by Charlie Hebdo, the so-called paragon of freedom of expression.
Though Sinet successfully sued the publisher and won a 90,000 euro court judgment for wrongful job termination, I need to ask my dear Thayaparan: was Sinet’s sacking for standing by his cartoon-article the ideals that Charlie Hebdo fought to maintain?
Incidentally, Sinet 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". The JDL had been considered by the FBI as the second most active terrorist group.
Just wee specks of Western hypocrisy
But those happenings at Charlie Hebdo, the sacking of Sinet and Mona Chollet for merely exercising their rights to ‘freedom of expression’ were but wee specks in the bigger picture of Western hypocrisy on their so-called freedom of expression.
Recall Prince Harry of Wales? In 2006, then only a young 22-year-old, he went to a fancy dress party wearing a swastika armband. He was widely castigated for that. Lord Janner, a senior figure in Britain's Jewish community, said, "What Harry did was both stupid and evil.”
Evil? I have seen 'Dracula', 'Liberace', 'Stalin', 'Peter Pan', 'Hitler', 'Moses', 'Tojo' and even a 'George Bush' at fancy dress parties, all winning at least a laugh or two. But the ruckus evoked from such an innocuous incident by an unsuspecting youth was so great that not only the young royalty was forced into apologising (for what evil?) but also panicked his father, the future King of England into issuing abject apologies and explanations of how silly his son had been, with British ministers wading in, all stumbling forward to prostrate themselves before the Gods of their guilt.
Freedom of expression? Thayaparan, your “Already there is talk of the limits of free speech in the Western context” happened years and years ago, though admittedly not to vile, villainous and vicious abuses against Islam.
Oh, don’t forget David Irving and Ken Livingstone, too. Livingstone was the mayor of London and this was what an Australian newspaper, Sydney Morning Herald, reported on what happened to him in February 2006:
London's feisty mayor Livingstone was suspended for a month on Friday for comparing a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard, a verdict the mayor said struck "at the heart of democracy”.A three-person panel, which hears complaints against local authorities, ruled in a case brought by a Jewish group that Livingstone, 60, had brought his office into disrepute. It ordered him suspended for four weeks from March 1.
"Three members of a body that no one has ever elected should not be allowed to overturn the votes of millions of Londoners," Livingstone said in a statement. "This decision strikes at the heart of democracy. Elected politicians should only be able to be removed by the voters or for breaking the law."
David Irving, was jailed by Austria for questioning some matters on the Jewish Holocaust. Personally I think he's a joke. Some say he's a racist with extreme right-wing leanings, but I think he is an opportunistic bloke who made his living by writing for the taste of a fringe right-wing neo-Nazi-ish sector.
I have never read Irving’s books (though I have heard of them) and I don't intend to. Well, Irving has been banned from entering Germany, Austria, Australia and Canada. Holocaust denying is a crime in Germany and Austria. Freedom of expression? What happened to that cherished Western institution then?
Christian Fleck, a sociologist at the Austrian University of Graz, has been for freedom of speech, arguing against the trial of David Irving. Fleck said that with people like Irving, one should use argument and not the law against them.
Fleck argued: “Are we really afraid of someone whose views on the past are palpable nonsense, at a time when every schoolchild knows of the horrors of the Holocaust? Are we saying his ideas are so powerful we can't argue with him? Irving is a fool. And the best way of dealing with fools is to ignore them. By outlawing such opinions, inevitably we give them the frisson of the banned. We run the risk of turning them into an attractive proposition."But Professor Hajo Funke, a German historian, disagreed, saying that Irving must be put on trial. Funke explained: "In Germany and in Austria, there is a moral obligation to fight the kind of propaganda peddled by Irving. We can't afford the luxury of the Anglo-Saxon freedom of speech argument in this regard.”
Now you may find it strange if I were to say I agree with Professor Hajo Funke. Besides Jews, there is no one more sympathetic to Jews against Holocaust Denial than a Chinese, because a typical Chinese (or Korean) would become terribly upset when Japan approves its historical revisionism which attempts to whitewash and deny its atrocities in Korea and China. I just so happen to be an ethnic Chinese.
So, fair enough, professor. I accept your hesitation about Anglo-Saxon freedom of speech (which in the first instance was never allowed to be in full bloom), but then, what about the deliberate publishing of the Prophet Muhammad's caricatures by the European media, and in the most vile, abusive and deliberately provocative manner? Shouldn’t what is good for the goose be also good for the gander?
So on the first issue of the senseless Paris massacre by a few Islamist militants, Je suis Charlie aussi (also) and I condemn those murders as I would other senseless murders of human beings, regardless of their religious or ethnic affiliations, and regardless of who have been the perpetrators.
On the second issue of the European so-called ‘freedom of expression’, if the 'Je suis Charlie' rally had about this fabled claim, I hate to say this but I have to agree with Khairy Jamaluddin's choice of word to describe it, 'nauseating', though I would not use the expression ‘Je ne suis pas Charlie’.
Instead I have a far more delightful Malaysian word for the European claim – Podah!
Refreshing. A little long, but still more eloquent than anything I could muster.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, this is a minority view. The majority remain drunk on that dangerous concoction of emotions, ignorance and prejudice.
Charlie Hebdo just an "incident" kah ?
ReplyDeleteBravo Jihadi Tee !
firstly you do not know to read, secondly you are childish, wakakaka
DeleteYeah........12 men kenna killed are sap sap water for cibai kaytee ma.
DeleteCharlie Hebdo cannot be compared to Mohammed Deif.
ReplyDeleteMohammed Deif is an armed military combatant.
He knows very well, wherever he is, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, he is a legitimate military target. I don't think he has much chance of ever dying a natural death. His wife and children were not targets but unfortunately they were killed. Its a war. Similarly, no doubt many German civilians were killed when Allied bombers targeted Hitler's Berlin bunker, many times in efforts to take him out.
I neither condone nor condemn that action.
Just as I find that evil hypocrite Netanyahu nauseating, I find Khairy Jamaluddin equally nauseating for daring to be nauseated by this rally in Europe. A corrupted, opportunistic, slippery, no-principled politician the likes of Khairy Jamaluddin should be the last to be publicly indignant, trying to hog the limelight for his own benefit. We are nauseated enough without him making us even more nauseated. Someone please tell that nauseating guy in his face to STFU as far as this play-acting is concerned for this whole Charlie stuff....wakakaka....there, I am no hypocrite as I don't believe in freedom of speech for this 'monkey'. P.S. the 'monkey' nick is actually a return compliment to him for labelling others as monkeys when he find their views not to his liking, wakakaka.
ReplyDeleteAnything that Muslim done is wrong even fighting for breath. What others carried out in killing is justice.
ReplyDeleteIt will be a lesson to all. Don't touch other religions.
The Charlie Hebdo murderers weren't exactly fighting for their breath.
DeleteNope...these murderers are not fighting for their breath....they STOPPED the breaths of others, including innocent bystanders.
DeleteAnything to do with freedom of expression ?
ReplyDeleteRather, it's two Abrahamic religions team up
for dominace over the other !
-huaren
For killing 12 people for a cartoon is just too much. Charlie Hebdo had also criticised the pope and poke fun at the nuns, but the christians did not massacre them. Charlie Hebdo had often poke fun at politicians too but they too did not resort to killing. The Jews protested about what Charlie Hebdo wrote, but they did not resort to killing either. We are talking about killing and not just protest. If you do not like the cartoon, you can always protest, but not to kill. Killing is too much.
ReplyDeleteAs for saying that Palestinian is uncivilised, they are not the only ones. In fact, many countries had been dubed uncivilised too.
As regarding Israel wrongly killing the terrorist wife and children, that is not intentional but it was war time, whereas the terrorists in the Paris massacre were prepared intentionally went to massacre civilians.
not intentional? when the Israeli air force launched a missile at the house? who live in the house? what war time? the Israeli attack was like the attack on CH office, both terrorist attacks without any warning
DeleteThere are no diplomatic relations between Gaza and Israel. The Israeli's abandoned Gaza decades ago. Dragging settlers from land that was disputed. It was the West Transjordan portion (including Gaza) that was legally entitled to the Jewish Nation. At the St Remo Conference 1920, witnessed and signed by Emir Faizal, and King Abdullah. Don't give me this BS that it is an illegal occupation.
DeletePrior to that, historicity proves that the Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed Judea and Samaria to the Province of Palestina. It was Ottoman occupied territory after the Mohammedan Invasion. Hence, the response of the Crusades
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
Israel limits the amount of weaponized material that could be used
againsts its citizens and carries out attacks to neutralize suicide bombers
and infiltrators. Note, while traveling to Israel. I was told not ride on buses, trains or even eat at busy restaurants (canadian embassy warnings). Let me quote you one example of the terror the Jews have to endure daily. The Fogel family who were butchered in their homes. What do you think happened in May 13. 1969 to the Chinese in Malaysia ?.
The Israeli's are way more humane than any Muslim country. Not eating steak ,lobster , and driving around in BMW's like their brethren is not a
humanitarian crisis. See for yourself their street stalls full of food, malls, fancy restaurants and hotels on Al Jazeera. The Israeli's could cut their
power, water and stop food shipments to Gaza tomorrow if they used the full extent of their ability...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp2UcV2Ldaw
ever heard of the Balfour Declaration (the Pom's arbritary creation of an artificial state for Jews), Nakba 1948, UNSC Resolution 242, etc?
Deleteno, you haven't which was why you went way before the 2nd Diaspora into the Roman Era. Why start from there (convenient for your argument?) and why don't you go before the Exodus when the Israelites invaded Canaan and slaughtered the natives there, seizing their land in the same way as they're doing now, slaughtering them in Deir Yassin and suchlike villages and towns and scattering them from Palestine in the Nakba, and now still continuing to rob their land including previously Gaza. Even Jerusalem was NOT built by the Israelites but again was seized from the Jebusites
Read through my blog and see the vile atrocities against Palestinians and Lebanese and the several racist rabbis who made bigoted comments, even against kushims (niggers) and goyims such as you Christians
The Israelis should hand over those utilities which belong to the Palestinians in teh first place but they deliberately hang on to them because, as you suggested, they cut the services off from time to time to threaten/blackmail the inmates of Gaza and West Bank. The reality is the Israelites want to control the Palestinians while they continue robbing the latters' land
What a twisted CB logic, masked by the declaration of religious alignment & tribalism encroachment!
DeleteWhat about Palestinians and Lebanese? What about Jews? & What about Canaanites?
Ooop... u mentioned it, THAT place was & is part of a god-forsaken land where a monotheistic indoctrination started to segregated the tribes into arbitrary demarcation of race, nation & religious believes.
Never mind genetically they r ALL from the same human stock!
These people occupied the same land since eon ago. & now u r part of that bleeding-hearter who wants to find REASON for their own carnage among themselves?
Come on.. use yr brain, iff it has NOT been blinded by yr inflammable hatred towards the Zionism & thus almost anything Jews!
quote yr inflammable hatred towards the Zionism & thus almost anything Jews! unquote
Deletewrong, I like, among many Jews, Billy Cristal, Woody Allen, the late Robin Williams, etc and I respect and support UNSC Resolution 242 which allows the Israelis to continue living in their own land but not in the current occupied territories belonging to Palestinians. I admire and respect decent Israelis like the B'Tselem people. I also respect the Meretz Party which is a Zionist social democratic political party
think carefully before you carelessly and recklessly accuse people wrongly
Then, re -read ALL yr past postings that related to ANYTHING links to Jews, no matter how slightly.
DeleteU dont seem to realise how yr 'true' feeling emanates through through these write-ups!
Israel actually tried to exist for some years within its UNSC 242 recognised boundaries. It didn't work. The Arab countries tried 3 times during those years to decapitate it.
DeleteIsrael came to the conclusion it needs to occupy ae wide buffer around those boundaries to have any chance of surviving. Otherwise they may well be driven to the sea. That's where we still are today.
Ktemoc - 'what war time ?"
DeleteHamas fired 950 rockets into Israel during June-July - August 2014 (Ha'aretz compilation).
I call that a war.
Mohammed Deif , the case you brought up, is an armed military combatant. He is a legitimate military target.
Israeli F-16s targeted him as an armed military combatant, at his known position. Some other people around him were killed, but he escaped.
Its within the laws of war.
Even if KTemoc was correct. It was the TransJordan not Palestine whom 'Balfour Declaration (the Pom's arbritary creation of an artificial state for Jews), Nakba 1948, UNSC Resolution 242' are referring too. If you want to follow UN Resolution 242 than Jordan has first dibs on the land, not a fictitious peoples called Palestinians. Jordan has given up claim on Israel. It doesn't want the cesspool called Gaza. It doesn't even want East Jerusalem.
DeleteIts Ok for the Mohammedans to widen their boundaries by conquest, but the St Remo conference was a legal precedent. You cannot sign on dotted lines and use Islam Hudnah(truce) and Takiya to re-write history and force the UN to re-negotiate agreements every time you are not happy with the outcome.
That's typical of Islamic History. It began at an Oasis at Yathrib, a whole Jewish Tribe were murdered by you know who. How is the narrative painted. The Jews broke a truce... Bunch of liars and a culture that will not negotiate on good faith.
Ktemoc has never been to Israel, or West Bank, or Gaza for that matter. I was in Israel and West Bank. Talking to Israeli's, Coptics, and Muslims. I couldn't go into Gaza because my safety could not be guaranteed. The Gazans murdered activist Vitorio Arrigoni and Sami Ayyad of the Gaza Bible Society. Christians are disappearing from Gaza and West Bank.
Bethlehem used to be a Christian majority. They are almost gone. When i asked my Coptic guide what was going on. He was scared and hesitant to speak out. This is, Fatah and Hamas. If Israel were gone tomorrow. All minorities would be gone. Trust me, another Saudi Arabia... Social Outcasts, Gays,Lesbians, Christians, Zoroastrians, Atheists, Agnostics,Jews.... would all be murdered. The Israeli's are not the one's with the problem...
KT, it is interesting reading about the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the events leading to the establishment of the Jewish State in 1948. The British Mandate for Palestine included Jordan (previous Transjordan) and the remaining part west of the River Jordan was divided into areas for the Jewish and Arab people. The UN partition was agreed upon by the Jews while the Arab Nations disagreed. War broke out after Israel declared independence in 1948. A few wars were subsequently fought between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries with Israel gaining more lands after each skirmish. Most of the lands captured had been returned for peace.
DeleteI just wonder what would be the boundaries now if the Arab Nations did not declare war on Israel. Cheers, Adam.
You can argue all you want. There will be retaliation and more violence. They are not going to take this sitting down.
ReplyDeleteYes, the terrorists have shown us the way. Buay siong, just kill them
DeleteGidday KTemoc,
ReplyDeleteThanks for highlighting the plight of Muslims. I personally appreciate your article explaining the double standards practised by the western media. In fact the word anti-semitic has been hijacked. It was meant to be for middle-easterners.
Not to mention any impartial research on holocaust was condemned by western universities when they are meant to be epitomes of outward and civilised societies. Such was the fate of Joel Hayward in NZ in 2003.
Bravo KTemoc
You are wrong. Israel attacks in response to thousand of rockets shot by Hamas and these rockets are not words or cartoon. Secondly, many wives or women are also terrorists and suicide bombers themselves and even their children. Another thing, the IDF will announce that they are going to bomb a certain building and ask the occupants to vacate. They put out flyers and they follow the protocol of the rules of engagement otherwise, they will be prosecuted, but even U.N. will not able to find fault with them.
ReplyDeleteof course you are absolutely right - everyone knows that apart from his 27-year-old wife Widad being also a frightful terrorist, his seven-month-old son Ali and three-year-old daughter Sarah also were scary terrorists
Deleteand Palestinians in Gaza are all terrorists, not freedom fighters like the Israelis whose only wee lil' misdemeanour was in "borrowing" Palestinian land, and preventing those greedy Palestinians from re-acquiring their land "on loan" to freedom loving Israelis by bombarding those terrorist Arabs with F-16 delivered missiles and cluster bombs and tanks and heli-gunships, all supplied by the USA
F16 supplied by the US but funded by the Arabs! -huaren
Deleteread this http://bolehtalk.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/israel-egypt-saudi-arabia-versus.html
DeleteThanks for the info, KT.
DeleteDoes it turn to 'gold' whatever the West touches, especially the US ?
Obama pivots to the East has yet to produce 'dramatic' results !
-huaren
It can also be seen as millions of people marching to make a stand against terrorism, to message to the world that they refuse to be intimidated or cowed by violent and murderous extremist trying to impose their barbaric mindsets into a free society like France..
ReplyDeleteCharlie Hebdo may have been just a catalyst that triggered the outrage and revulsion to the sense of civility that ostensibly the free European societies cherish,
And on a deeper level ,it may not merely be about championing the freedom of speech and expression or freedom to mock via satire..
Its seems almost like about a whole continental society's psyche having an anxiety attack , venting out their pent up emotions about barbaric murderous madness,using religion ,time and again ,as excuse. And especially when the violence explodes in their own backyards.
And not in distant detached lands from their collective European psyches,where the murder and mayhem far outstrips this vile act in Paris.Then Je Suis Helpless.
One does feel violated when crime hits so close to us ,or more so when our homes are invaded , and the march seems to be also expressing that sentiment of violation upon the "free western society" ways..
Hypocritical ,Yes, but still necessary ,for a message to the violent extremist still in their midst!
I have to acknowledge that this write is a masterpiece!
ReplyDeleteAllow me to pin in a bit. In the late 80’s who is responsible for the mass murder of civilians in Africa, Bosnia, Sarajevo, Panama, Philippines, Honduras, Guatemala, Chile, Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq, etc.. etc? Who invaded, bombed, or funded coup d’etats employing assassins and death squads in a total of 82 countries since World War II? Islamofascism? Yes/No?
The freedom to ridicule and abuse shall only make us live in an Orwellian fascist world, and most of us are too dumb to realize this. Can we just hate the killings but not the whole religion? Yes/No?
From the lyrics of the Bee Gees – Too Much Heaven:
Nobody gets too much heaven no more
It’s as high as a mountain
And harder to climb
Nobody gets too much love anymore
It’s as wide as a river
And harder to cross
- hasan
Bee Gees is Haram....don't you know ??
Delete'The freedom to ridicule and abuse shall only make us live in an Orwellian fascist world, and most of us are too dumb to realize this. Can we just hate the killings but not the whole religion? Yes/No?'
DeleteFreedom of speech goes with the maturity of a society. Cultural civility is a given in a modern secular settings that either u laugh off/ignore the ridicules, &/or u counteract with yr version of attacks.
Granted - counterattack! But with equal magnitude & action! Definitely not the one we saw in the CH massacre, please.
Thus the notion of living in an Orwellian fascist world by abusing the freedom of speech, and without realizing it is pure BS!
Abrahamic faith is famous for its an-eye-for-an-eye judgmental verdict. But even that, if u care to analyse deeper, means, in transient, that the REACTION must be of EQUAL in magnitude & action. Yes?
Unless u r proposing a 'modern' version to a more fair & equal treatment that the ancient barbaric tribes used to know. Then, r we any 'worse' than them?
Or to some, the human evolution is advance in materialism BUT regress in humanity (compassion, fair & equality)!
Ummat Islam seems to have a far more share of extreme violent reactions to ANY challenges that Islam faces! What does that say about these Islamic followers - even though they might keep reminding the general public that Islam is a religion of peace?
This double talk from KT is just that - condemned CH massacre BUT using it to highlight the double standard hypocrisy of the Western medias.
Where’s the beef, pardon my punch?
Could it be, in a same manner, it's just like that kj's “I condemn again the Charlie Hebdo murders but the unity march was nauseating,“
It depicts the mindset of that person, who wants to make 'capital' out of a tragedy!
A hit on Zionism by KT & a political correctness to the umno blur-sotongs for KJ’s future career advancement
@ Anon 9.23 & Anon 10.49
DeleteMusics haram? I can play the guitar and I can do Streets of London and Anak song, unplugged version, for you. And if it ever starts to snow in Genting Highlands I promise I will make a big snowman for you, ok?
In Islam, the freedom of speech must always be accompanied with social responsibility. Because the limit of forbearance of people/society is always changing and unpredictable.
- hasan
Then what that CB fatwa declared by the ulama for?
DeleteFor syok sendiri or to tickle the heartlanders?
Or u r going to turn around & say fatwa is ONLY a guideline for the followers to choose to adhere?
Then, there is NO juripridence for ANY fatwa to be enforced, right?
Freedom of speech is a form of cultural barometer.
To a civilized crowd, that responsibility is inherently exercised with cultivated restrictions. To a spurious culture fed on hatred, then all things goes, as what we saw in the CH massacre!
Thus the hallmark for the predictability of the limit of forbearance of people/society rests with the degree of their civility!!
Hasan is a kepala pusing one. Listen too much to this punk song right?
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGNiXGX2nLU
Is that punk you, hasan? Me like hisham rais........really penghasut one
In modern times, killing journalists who draw cartoon is not accepted no matter how you want to defend the terrorists. Now, please leave out the Jews in this massacre. Why must every incidents involving muslim terrorists, you must bring in the Jews for e.g.
ReplyDeleteThis incident is about the terrorists who went to the office of Charlie Hebdo and massacre twelve of the staff. Let's talk about modern times and not bring in the past ancient times that happened hundreds of years ago which nobody knows exactly what happened. Many people who wrote about the past are bias too and may not be accurate.
Charlie Hebdo talks about pope using condom and nuns masturbating, those are worse than the cartoon on Prophet Muhammad that says, "why are so many of my followers extremists", which you now see in Taliban, Isis, Al Qaeda.
What about the Boko Haram wanting to impose Islamic State and starting bombing, killing and kidnapping women. If Boko Haram were to come to this land, would our govt. hesitate to attack the terrorists. I am sure not, even in the recent Sabah's intrusion. You can attack terrorists who are armed, but should not attack civilians who are unarmed.
I am absolutely curious about kaytee intention. Frankly, I dont give a damn about palestinians. It is their fucking cibai problem. We have plenty of discrimination going on in this world. Heard of Western Saharans kenna brutalised by the Morroccans.
DeleteI am exhausted with this. I donot drink so I thought I will build a snowman when I next go to gamble at Genting. But now Sheikh al-Munajjid has advised that that too is haram. Why do only kaffirs get to have all the fun? Why?
ReplyDeleteHahahahahahahaha.....you gave me the first laugh of the day. TQ !
DeleteCharlie Hebdo was just another manifestation of Islamist's reaction to anyone they disagree with.....3Ps - Prohibit, Persecute, Punish.
ReplyDeleteExcept the Punishment bit was just a little bit on the severe side.
The Islamists like ISIS and the Charlie Hebdo killers don't care too hoots about Palestine, so this has little or nothing to do with the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
ReplyDeleteISIS, for all its military prowess, has not fired a single bullet at Israel or Jewish interests, and Al Qaeda has ignored Israel, though it utilises the Palestine conflict for propaganda purposes.
Why did the terrorist leave his wife and children behind and not evacuate them knowing that the IDF are going to bomb that place? This is rather fishy. Something is not right here.
ReplyDeleteit was an Israeli attempted assassination of Mohammed Deif just as it had in 2004 assassinated Hamas spiritual leader, the quadriplegic almost-blind wheel-chair bound Sheikh Ahmed Ismail Hassan Yassin with a missile launched by a heli-gunship.
DeleteWhen its objective was to assassinate Palestinian leaders with such weapons it didn't give any prior warning, unlike intimidating punitive measures on other occasions when the aim was more to destroy houses, buildings, factories, etc.
What about louis mounbatten assassination? By IRA. It is ok lor
DeleteAn Eye for An Eye.....in the end everybody goes blind.
ReplyDeleteApparently Obama also thought the Charlie Hebdo incident, while regrettable , was also not such a big deal.
ReplyDeleteHe spoke to the French President over the phone, but last Sunday he stayed back in the White House family residence and watched football (American football) on TV instead of flying to Paris to join the "Je Suis" march.
However, he has been politically forced to issue an apology yesterday for no senior American presence at the Paris march.
This is coming on top of lingering accusations that he is "soft" on Islamist terror, and even older underground whispering that he is actually a Muslim (Obama rarely attends church and his middle name truly is 'Hussein', wakakakakaka).
Since every man, woman here and his dog, cat, hamster wants to pass judgement on Charlie Hebdo, has anyone here actually read the magazine ?
ReplyDeleteHas anyone looked at more than one edition, so they can understand what the magazine is actually like , so they can know what they are writing about instead of blind....
Tell that to KT!
DeleteHe might response with speak no francaise!
Wakakakaka....
If you don't want to be screwed by lady boy boy, don't go to patpong. Kapish, you cibai folks (especially some idiots). You ask for it one ma.
DeleteOh so now you wanna play punk yeah........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc0RX5iY8Ns
Isn't it only human to practise 'double standard' at one time or the other for self preservation and interest ? Anything to be ashamed of ?
ReplyDelete-huaren
KT is 人上人, thus CANNOT tahan 'double standard' ma!
DeleteWakakakaka...
yeah.......fuck kaytee la......he himself as equally hypocrite as ever
DeleteOn an aside, "Podah" (and its feminine form, "Podi") is a decidedly Tamil phrase. Widely used in all Tamil speaking communities whether in Sri Lanka, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Singapore or Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteKilling should never be justified. Are we going to justified future killing by citing the U.S.A invasion of Iraq and Israel invasion of Gaza. If there are ten more such incidents in future, will we continue to cite these two incidences to justify violence. Violence will never end if it is being justified every time. Stop justification, and violence will be reduced. Persons doing the violence should be held responsible.
ReplyDeleteWhat U.S.A. and Israel did may be wrong, but that does not mean because they do wrong, we can also do wrong. What kind of logic is that?
If Charlie Hebdo incidence will to happen here, will we again bring up U.S.A and Israel invasion. If Star newspaper office had similar incident, what kind of excuses to give. Maybe, you can give the excuse that Star newspaper printed articles that are racist. So there will always be excuses to justify killings and violence. The excuses will never end and violence will never end. Stop giving excuses, and make the perpetrators responsible for his action, then, violence will stop or decrease.
looes I am not publishing your comment on Lim Yew Hock because you have got the sequence of events out of whack. His alleged dalliance in Australia was BEFORE his conversion to Islam - nice f* try to smear Islam so f* u, you cibai bullshitter
ReplyDeleteFor Kaytee viewing pleasure........
ReplyDeletePerhaps France should set up similar commitee just like the one set up by Golda Meir in response with the Munich Massacre
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFeDt0eVcTE
Who is Yoni? What is Yoni's relationship with Benjamin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wovg2yJQLAc
Kaytee,
11 dead Isrealis are sap sap water too. I wonder what happen if it's your mum.
Israelis representing their country are legitimate military targets.
DeletePalestine is effectively still at war with Israel.
It comes under military action , and is not a crime
Ok, now you have become the target. We do it LKY style......sue till your pants drop off
Deletehttp://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/14/charlie-hebdo-issue-on-sale-paris-attacks-france-queues
ReplyDeleteThis week's Charlie Hebdo issue sold out 5million copies.. going into.2nd printing run
I think Australia's approach makes a lot of sense.
ReplyDeleteFree Speech in general is taken seriously in Australia.
Opinions and criticisms of government policies, politicians, corporations, royalty are all protected by the constitution.
However, racial discrimination laws forbid insulting people on the basis of race or religion.
In that way both cases of clearly insulting Islam as well as anti-Jewish remarks and denying the Holocaust would be against the law.
Uighurs and Tibetans who cannot accept Chinese (Han's) rule
ReplyDeletehave very different ways of protest.
The former run amok with long knives killing people
while the latter self-immolate !
What makes them different ?
-huaren
Religious upbringing plays an important part here.
DeleteBoth face the same unenviable situation of desperation as so well expressed by one commentator, Golgotha;
For the powerless and dispossessed, divine retribution is a kind of last hope of justice for believers, especially in cases where the guilty parties are so powerfully entrenched that there is virtually no possibility of obtaining justice, in This world.
Thus, one see the different reaction to a same situation - a self immolation vis-a-vis a mass attack on unarmed bystanders.
Showcase the teaching of these religious indoctrination - one in tune with self blame while the inflicts blame on outsiders!
But the adherents insist that they are practising a religion of peace !
Delete-huaren
So u know now which is which that should be termed religious of peace!
DeleteFor further reference, one should read Prof Clive Kessler - a rage against history.
Clive certainly goes a very long way to seek out the roots of all the violence !
Delete-huaren
The Royal Malaysian Navy’s retired commander S Thayaparan has rebutted your piece. Are you going to reply KT? One thing I know that S Thaya was dead wrong was he called KT, "Son", wakakaka, didn't realise that KT you are actually a bloody old man wakakaka
ReplyDeletewakakaka, it's freedom of expression mah. I'm glad I could 'motivate' him to write a response which incidentally I like. Now, whether I will in kind will depend on my time available as letters require lots of time involving research, thinking, composiiton etc to match his fine piece. wakakaka
Delete'wakakaka, it's freedom of expression mah'.....tsk...tsk...sigh...
DeleteNow this is called freedom of expression!!!!
Not hiding behind the veil of double standard hypocrisy when yr twisted logic is been demolished piece by piece.....wakakakakaka...
KT, KT, when r u going to call a spade by its true name, instead of worming yr way through muddy 'explanations' just to satisfy yr real crusade?
see my response to Charlie below, wakakaka
Deletehttps://www.malaysiakini.com/news/286271
ReplyDeleteI must say Commander (Rtd.) Thayaparan's demolition of Ktemoc's article is a masterpiece.
I too disagree with the main thrust of Ktemoc's write up, but I could never come up with such a brilliant counter-parry.
aisehman, you sound cruelly delighted that I have been demolished by Commander Thayaparan - sob sob. But why don't you wait for my reply to him, wakakaka.
DeleteThaya is extremely mild lor. Wait till Mr Lupus aka CL Flamiaris comes in. Hahahahaha, kaytee sure mampus one.
DeleteThat is why kaytee refuses to debate with that man in aussie land........
Waiting with abated breath for KT's reply....we support you KT, but of course you know we can't always agree on everything...that's being human lah.
DeleteBut please include the Commander's article, as some of us here do not subscribe to Malaysiakini. TQ
yeah......why not have live debate
DeleteKaytee vs CL Flamiaris. Venue : sydney. Where the fuck is my popcorn
and samsu wakakaka
DeleteWhere is Manmanlai on this issue ?
ReplyDeleteQuiet as a mouse.
Hiding and hoping it will go away ?