‘KD Freedom of Expression’ scuttled?

My response to Commander (Retd) S Thayaparan's take on my article 'Charlie Hebdo - an onion that needs to be peeled' has been published in Malaysiakini as a letter (thanks mateys):

p/s for those who subscribes to Malaysiakini, Commander Thayaparan's article 'chewing' me up, wakakaka is accessible via a link in this post (or letter to Malaysiakini), but with kind indulgence from Malaysiakini editors, I have produced in full at end of this post for those of you who don't have a subscription - advice: get a subscription - you don't know just what you're missing ;-)


3:51PM Jan 15, 20

‘KD Freedom of Expression’ scuttled?

 0  0

0

Firstly, I wish to thank Commander (Rtd) S Thayaparan for his eruditely written take on my earlier piece ‘Charlie Hebdo - an onion that needs to be peeled’ though sadly it has a number of incorrect allegations against me, and secondly, to apprise him of why I disagree with some of his accusations against me.

The worst accusation he hurled against me has been “K Temoc does the usual linking of the carnage of American neo-colonialism to the Charlie Hebdo slaughter. It is an old tactic used in liberal rhetoric that is meant to overshadow the slaughter itself (in guise of nuance) thus establishing identity politics.”

Pray tell me, my dear Commander Thayaparan, where was it in my article that had me “... linking of the carnage of American neo-colonialism to the Charlie Hebdo slaughter.” Yes, please re-read my article to see if you can discover that supposed ‘linking’ in the murky waters of your angry response. If you can find it I’ll call you uncle and buy you two beers (grin).

The Commander has been very very naughty in suggesting that non-existent ‘linking' which I had supposedly done. I know naval officers especially those who are submarine-qualified are trained to torpedo enemy vessel from below the sea surface (assuming in the first place they succeed in submerging their submarines) but it’s altogether another thing to torpedo a debating foe way below his belt.

Again, he did just that when he wrote: “The writer starts off the piece confusingly with “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...” and ends “finding the hypocrisy of Charlie Hebdoas offensive as the slaughter of their cartoonists”.

and

“In other words, to someone like the writer, the slaughter atCharlie Hebdo ends up an ‘incident’ and not a tragedy because they were hypocrites when it comes to the ideal of freedom of expression.”

Very naughty, Commander. You’re putting words in my mouth or writing, that the senseless killings were on par with Charlie Hebdo’s hypocrisy on the issue of freedom of expression.

Both your paragraphs basically accused me of what I had attempted to forestall in my opening paragraphs of my article, namely, the emotional conflation of two separate issues, namely, (1) the wanton evil killings in Paris by Islamist terrorists and (2) the claimed ‘freedom of expression’ when in reality the latter didn’t exist in Charlie Hebdo, and what I had feared, that in the aftermath of the chaos the sympathy for the former would blind people to the reality of the latter.

Separating two kettles of fish

And that has been why I refused to term the Paris events as a tragedy (only the killings were tragic) UNTIL I could separate the two distinctly different kettles of fish, notwithstanding the general superficial observations they were interconnected, the myth thatCharlie Hebdo suffered the assault because they were paragons of freedom of expression.

I provided events to support my belief that ‘freedom of expression’ had not been practiced by Charlie Hebdo and to a certain extent by European authorities and their media.

In fact, on the senseless killings I asserted unequivocally that “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.”

And in my concluding paragraphs I stated the same, drawing distinction between the two separate issues. Lamentably, Commander Thayaparan in his wrong accusations has inflicted the most unkindest and unfair cut on me.

I’m also sad that he has accused me of singling out Jewish oppression, but doesn’t the word ‘oppression’ means exactly what it is, and thus, does it matter which race or religion oppressed who? I would like to remind him I did also include US oppression, not just Jewish ones.

Anyway, accusing me of singling out Jewish oppression (instead of looking at the oppression per se) is like being accused of being anti-Malay or anti-Islam in Malaysia, where the more one attempts to defend himself against such accusations, the worse it becomes for the accused.

I could if he wishes include Saudi oppression of Shiite Muslims, Chinese oppression of Tibetan people, Hindu extremists’ burning an Australian Christian missionary and his children alive in a car, and their oppression of Indian Muslims, and vice versa in Pakistan, etc.

Fortunately as a thick-skinned blogger I’m quite used to false accusations against me where I have been accused of being variously a DAPster and MCA-Umno paid cybertrooper though sadly never a MIC or PKR cybertrooper. I’m still waiting for the alluded numerous cheques from DAP and MCA head offices and Purajaya. I dream on!

Talking about bloggers, a well-known Malaysian blogger (we know who he is, don’t we) had once informed his readers that most Malaysians lack reading skills. While I don’t wish nor dare to accuse Commander Thayaparan of this, I sense that sometimes when people are angry they read their opposition’s writing in the way they had already pre-judged them.

Commander Thayaparan must have been annoyed by what he saw as my less than favourable reference to him and had come sailing out on KD Marah with all guns blazing, but alas, before he could launch more torpedoes after the one that got me just below my navel (smile) he inadvertently scuttled his own vessel a la Graf Spee.

Sadly, in accusing my views as being riddled with assumptions and condescension, he himself has been grossly guilty of them. And frankly I am too old to be his ‘son’ (smile) but I am prepared to respectfully differ to his seniority, status and superior writing skills (though not his arguments), and address him as Aneh.

Plight of those in other parts of the world

Aneh also stated: “Does the ‘Je suis Charlie’ mean that the people who adopt it are ignorant of the plight of those in other parts of the world? Does the adoption of this moniker mean that people are ignorant of the hypocritical stance of their governments, as the writer seems to imply? Does the adoption of this moniker mean that people are ignorant of the hypocrisy of freedom of expression?”

Now, hasn’t Aneh been guilty of making assumptions in his above assertions, a ‘sin’ he has accused me of? I invite him to peruse the comments in various Malaysian media interactive forums to see whether his faith in his naive belief above would continue to hold?

He then wrote: “Put it another way, do people who proudly chant ABU (Anything But Umno), really think that the alternative is perfect? In the case of the French, perhaps they are choosing to claim allegiance to an ideal (freedom of expression) something that Islam has a problem with and commiserating with their fellow citizens. Could this be it?”

Again another of his assumptions and good faith in the French people, many of whom are by now decidedly fed-up with the Muslims in their country (as is the case today in Australia), mind you, not that I blame them. But the point I had been making in my previous letter is that for me, Je ne suis pas Charlie if the Paris march had been about eulogising Charlie Hebdo as a paragon of expression of freedom.

That would be like me saluting Benjamin Netanyahu for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. A very nauseating thought.

As for our own ABU, much as I respect, admire and indeed adore Haris Ibrahim, I disagree with his ABU right from Day 1 (exercising my freedom of expression - grin) because one horrendous outcome of ABU had been the replacement of a good man like Saifuddin Abdullah, yes from Umno and so what, with a less-than-admirable person who believed that babies abandoned by single mothers through illicit births had been the result of Valentine’s Day and New Year’s Day celebrations and whose colleagues have been either recent Deucalion-wannabe or one who informed our supposedly august Parliament that “If we see women who don’t have husbands and are divorced not because their husbands are dead, (it must be because) they are ‘gatal sikit’.”

Well, Aneh, you have to ask those people who proudly chanted ABU especially those who voted in Temerloh in the last election, whether they had really thought carefully before they voted out Saifuddin Abdullah? That's the problem with an angry mob having a catchy chant, or an equally emotional one in Paris!

Then Aneh said of his Tambee (moi, smile): “I do not dispute anything the writer wrote about the hypocrisy of Charlie Hebdo, even though they have a history of insulting every state and religious sacred cow on the planet.”

Europe’s most sacred cow

Not so Aneh, as I have narrated in the case of Maurice Sinet who was sacked by Charlie Hebdo in 2008 because he had the offensive temerity to touch on Europe’s most sacred cow.

I could go on and on refuting Aneh's words against me but I have to apologise to Aneh for not doing him proper honour with just this short response today because I somehow missed his article until one of my blog visitors informed me early this morning, thus I am pressed to finish it before the Friday* cut-off time for letters to Malaysiakini.

* should be Thursday - my bad ;-)

However, I am very happy to note that Aneh has since his statement about “those very ideals that Charlie Hebdo fought to maintain in its own sometimes crude way,” has now revised it to the “various degrees of freedom of expression”.

Based on that, we could draw a rating of 0 to 10 where 10 represents absolute freedom of expression. I, arbitrarily of course, would gauge Austria at 6 for jailing David Irving, Britain at 7.5 for its silly treatment of Prince Harry and a 6.5 for undemocratically suspending Ken Livingstone, while Charlie Hebdo would be found in the nasty netherworld of a negative 5 or further back, for both its ill treatment of Maurice Sinet and its misuse of the freedom of expression to abuse, vilify and provoke people’s scared beliefs, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. What Charlie Hebdo has done has been beyond journalistic satire.

Mind, there is a temptation for Tambee (moi) to shout triumphantly ‘Land Ahoy’ and dismiss Aneh’s revised statement on freedom of expression as a grudging euphemism of the reality I had presented, but I believe he has made quite a compelling case for his “various degrees of freedom of expression” which I will consider as a moderation of my harsh criticism on European hypocrisy on topic. Nandri Aneh (grin).

********

Commander Thayaparan's article follows:

9:28AM Jan 14, 2015

By S Thayaparan

The Charlie Hebdo debate on freedom of expression

 31  2

7

“A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.” - Douglas Adams


COMMENT In a piece riddled with assumptions and condescension, blogger K Temoc attempts to navigate the treacherous terrain of religion, politics and media and ends in agreement with Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin.
                                                                 
The writer starts off the piece confusingly with “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...” and ends finding the hypocrisy of Charlie Hebdo as offensive as the slaughter of their cartoonists.
                    
In other words, to someone like the writer, the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo ends up an “incident” and not a tragedy because they were hypocrites when it comes to the ideal of freedom of expression.

The writer says I (like many others) “chose to highlight what had stood out uniquely, that of the Islamist terrorists killing a Muslim police officer” and goes on about “this identification of a victim’s religious affiliation or even ethnic grouping as regrettable”.

Well, if something stood out “uniquely,” then why should it not be highlighted, not that I did this as a matter of course - an opening point of the absurdity of Islamic extremism is old ground for me and was not the thrust of the piece. The fact that the perpetrators targeted the cartoonists because of what they deemed offensive to their religion has no part to play or no need of mention, according to the writer’s point of view.

However, since the writer chose to ignore what my piece was about and chose instead to argue on assumptions he makes, I will respond to his points merely because it exposes a kind of thinking that has eroded the very values many in Malaysia wish they had more of.

K Temoc does the usual linking of the carnage of American neo-colonialism to the Charlie Hebdo slaughter. It is an old tactic used in liberal rhetoric that is meant to overshadow the slaughter itself (in guise of nuance) thus establishing identity politics.

The reality is that the people of France have always been sympathetic to the Palestinian cause to the extent that Israel has accused successive French governments, not to mention French citizens, of being anti-Semitic.

Indeed what was unusual about the march last Sunday was Israeli participation in a capital where much anti-war/anti-American, pro-Palestinian literature is disseminated.

Does the ‘Je suis Charlie’ mean that the people who adopt it are ignorant of the plight of those in other parts of the world? Does the adoption of this moniker mean that people are ignorant of the hypocritical stance of their governments, as the writer seems to imply? Does the adoption of this moniker mean that people are ignorant of the hypocrisy of freedom of expression?

Put it another way, do people who proudly chant ABU (Anything But Umno), really think that the alternative is perfect? In the case of the French, perhaps they are choosing to claim allegiance to an ideal (freedom of expression) something that Islam has a problem with and commiserating with their fellow citizens. Could this be it?

Acts of barbarity

Here is an excerpt from an email from a dear old French friend who generously allowed me to publish his private message:

“Well, Thaya, we (he and his wife) walked again today, as we have done numerous times. My son cried and messaged me “...that you walk for everyone, free Palestine, free Iraq, rage against the Americans. If you and your little group were gunned down, these Muslims would have lost 40 old people who always defend them. This world is too complex for simple men like us, my dear old comrade.”

Therefore, I know that when many French citizens saw Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu at the solidarity march, they were extremely aware of the absurdity of it all.

However, we must condemn all acts of barbarity. For whatever cynical reasons, K Temoc chose to single out Jewish oppression. Have you noticed that in these condemnations of Jewish aggression, there is never any talk of Muslim oppression on their own kind or better yet have you noticed that the discourse of this reality is discouraged or even shouted down? However, when it comes to Muslims aggression, every excuse and justification is tendered? Think about it.

And then, we come to the writer’s analysis (sic) of freedom of expression:

“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.”

Son, I am way ahead of you. This is what I wrote some time ago in a piece titled, ‘The press gangs of Malaysia’.

“I never bought into that cliché of ‘free press’ believing that such a state is heavily reliant on context and generally those who advocated this ideal rarely practiced it themselves.

“This does not mean I don’t subscribe to the concept of a ‘market place of ideas’ which is dependent on freedom of expression which has always been constrained here in Malaysia, the press being the prime example.”

I do not dispute anything the writer wrote about the hypocrisy ofCharlie Hebdo, even though they have a history of insulting every state and religious sacred cow on the planet. I do think that K Temoc is disingenuous when he implies that freedom of expression is an all or nothing proposition or at the very least implies that ‘Western’ proponents of such, makes such claims.

However his long spiel on “happened years and years ago, though admittedly not to vile, villainous and vicious abuses against Islam” is utter horse manure and any right-thinking person should call him out on it.

K Temoc’s contention is that because there is no absolute freedom of expression anywhere in the world and that double standards are present, the ideal of freedom of expression as promoted by the West or (France in this case) is only deserving of a “podah”.

Well, he is wrong. The various degrees of freedom of expression do matter, have mattered and most definitely will determine how a society evolves. Any serious examination of the discourse will reveal that there has never been any proposition of ‘absolute freedom’, except as advocated by certain groups.

Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany and Austria, that is understandable considering their histories but other than that, freedom of expression is far more beneficial to the average citizen in both countries. Compare this with Holocaust denying in some Muslim countries where to argue otherwise would be to invite a possible death sentence.

Never mind that Muslims flock to France and Europe because they have been prosecuted in their own countries, mostly engaging in behaviour deemed ‘seditious’ which often involves freedom of expression.  Never mind the fact that Muslim extremists have targeted French Muslims in a pogrom to stifle independent thought in Islam.

In America, nearly anything goes, including Holocaust denial Sunni Muslims from Iraq who have taken to broadcasting their hate speech against Shias (in Iraq) from California (because they are banned in Iraq) where because of the degree of freedom of expression there, they exist side by side with other hate groups.

The degree of freedom of expression in Qatar for example is different from those of most Islamic Middle Eastern states, thus allowing a form of journalism rarely practiced in that region, not to mention allowing Western audiences a different perspective. The fact that extremists from their own region target Al Jazeera should tell you why degrees of freedom of expression are anathema to a certain kind of cretin.

Our limited freedom
        
Here in Malaysia, freedom of expression is much more evident online, so you and I, because of our limited freedom of expression, can argue on the pages of Malaysiakini, whereas we may not even get a chance in the mainstream media. Of course, depending on your political affiliation calling someone or some group “extremist” would warrant different sanctions.

For every point K Temoc raises on Western hypocrisy of freedom of expression, there is a more powerful counter point, which has proven far more beneficial to Western societies, and which Islamic societies desperately need. They need this far more than the Muslim apologia some writers choose to indulge in.

Appeals to emotions of the transgression of the Jewish state or Western hypocrisy pales in comparison, to what Muslims have done to their own and continue to do to their own. Most times, when a tragedy like this occurs, some writers feel the need to proffer excuses, justifications and intellectual sleight of hand, instead of reminders of what Muslims could achieve with the right tools, however flawed those tools may be.

Yes, we could cherry pick and offer examples of how Charlie Hebdo has not lived up to its ideals but really, which groups of individuals have? Over the years, DAP has proclaimed many fine ideals but as history demonstrates, they have not be able to live up to them. The same goes for PAS, and most recently PKR.

If they are not perfect, should we abandon them? Should we abandon their ideals even if they cheery pick and practice double standards?

Because of this latest aggression some Western intellectuals (much to the delight of their Asian counterparts) are considering limiting the degree of freedom of expression and rethinking questions of censorship.

No doubt, there would be much resistance to this, but thankfully, because of the degree of freedoms of expression enjoyed in those countries, people disagreeing will not be gunned down on the streets or publically executed in the market place.

To dismiss these degrees of freedom of expression either out of ignorance, deviousness or plain obliviousness merely to score rhetorical points is far more damaging than the hypocrisy of Western nations when it comes to freedom of expression.

In conclusion, I am glad K Temoc finds common ground with the honourable gentleman from Rembau on this issue on the Paris rally of freedom of expression.

From K Temoc’s blog writing, I know that he would never limit the freedom of expression (or degree of freedom of expression) of Khairy, but as indicated by historical precedent, the same cannot be said of Khairy (or the political party he represents) extending the same courtesy to K Temoc.

---

S THAYAPARAN is Commander (rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy.