The actions of 2 criminals have, once again, stoked the fires of intolerance. Like the murder of Lee Rigby in May 2013 a couple of psychopaths used their religion to excuse the inexcusable. The reaction to the shooting of the journalists, cartoonists and police officers in the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris on 7th January has been in part predicatable and in part re-assuring. Predicibably there have been a number of reprisals aimed, and I use the term loosely, at the Muslim community in France but there have also been a number of peaceful mass demonstrations showing a nation's, indeed a continent's, support for the dead. We are all Charlie and we are all Ahmed.
This act was morally corrupt - you don't need religion to have a moral sense, if you don't know the difference between right and wrong you lack empathy not religion (who said that?). Whatever the provocation, the answer is not to run into a room and shoot people. Disagreeing with the content of a publication is one thing but this is not the way to resolve that disagreement- even though I may not like the publication or agree with its standpoint or editororial view, I cannot find a justification for this act as there are so many other ways to fix things.
"To jaw-jaw, is always better than to war-war" - Winston Churchill
Why do we seem more upset about this act than the current and continuing loss of life in the Middle East, Somalia, Nigeria etc. well partly because this is more than an attack on a few people, this is an attack on a fundamental aspect of our society; the right to say things without being scared of someone beating the shit out of you. With that right comes a certain responsiblity not to defame or incite but there are laws to protect the innocent from defamation, there are laws to punish incitment. Of course these laws don't always work but they are what civillised people use and are far better than the alternatives. Killing people has always happened and, sadly will continue to happen for a while yet, but events like this threatens our freedoms, freedoms hard fought for and which, once lost, are hard to get back. Another, and maybe more sinister, aspect is that it's sort of all right for people to kill their own kind, we just don't like it when they kill us!
Do we now have the situation where people are now scared to criticise one religion, all others are fair game, but we can't say anything bad about Islam in case some psyho decides to kill us? That can't be right. No target should be safe from satire, critisim and comedy.
As someone with no religion I simply do not understand how blasphemy works - how can an insult to an invisible friend drive you to this. I do not understand how the words written in a book 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 years ago (depending on your faith) can still be used to rule the thoughts of millions of people. I do not understand the explanation given by Ajhem Choudary that the concept of free speech does not exist in Islam.
"Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires."Is that really how people think?
