Is Tolerance A One-Way Street?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Douglass Murray via The Gatestone Institute,

  • When just about every other magazine in the free world fails to uphold the values of free speech and the right to caricature and offend, who could expect a group of cartoonists and writers who have already paid such a high price to keep holding the line of such freedoms single-handed?
  • Most of the people who said they cared about the right to say what they wanted when they wanted, were willing to walk the walk -- to walk through Paris with a pencil in the air. Or they were willing to talk the talk, proclaiming "Je Suis Charlie." But almost no one really meant it.
  • If President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel had really believed in standing up for freedom of expression, then instead of walking arm-in-arm through Paris together with such an inappropriate figure as Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, they would have held up covers of Charlie Hebdo and said: "This is what a free society looks like and this is what we back: everyone, political leaders, gods, prophets, the lot can be satirised, and if you do not like it then you should hop off to whatever unenlightened hell-hole you dream of."
  • The entire world press has internalised what happened at Charlie Hebdo and instead of standing united, has decided never to risk something like that ever happening to them again.
  • For the last two years, we have learned for certain that any such tolerance is a one-way street. This new submission to Islamist terrorism is possibly why, in 2016, when an athlete with no involvement in politics, religion or satire was caught doing something that might have been seen as less than fully respectful of Islam, there was no one around to defend him.

The 7th of this month marked two years to the day since two gunmen walked into the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris and murdered twelve people. This period also therefore marks the second anniversary of the period of about an hour during which much of the free world proclaimed itself to be "Charlie" and attempted, by walking through the street, standing for moments of silence or re-tweeting the hashtag "Je Suis Charlie" to show the whole world that freedom cannot be suppressed and that the pen is mightier than the Kalashnikov.

So two years on is a good time to take stock of the situation. How did that go? Did all those "Je Suis" statements amount to anything more than a blip on the Twitter-sphere? Anyone trying to answer such a question might start by looking at the condition of the journal everyone was so concerned about. How has it fared in the two years since most of its senior editorial staff were gunned down by the blasphemy police?


A Paris rally on January 11, 2015, after the Charlie Hebdo attack, featuring "Je Suis Charlie" signs. (Image source: Olivier Ortelpa/Wikimedia Commons)

Not well, if a test of the magazine's wellbeing is whether it would be willing to repeat the "crime" for which it was attacked. Six months after the slaughter, in July 2015, the new editor of the publication, Laurent Sourisseau, announced that Charlie Hebdo would no longer publish depictions of the Prophet of Islam. Charlie Hebdo had, he said, "done its job" and "defended the right to caricature." It had published more Muhammad cartoons in the issue immediately after the mass murder at their offices and since. But, he said, they did not need to keep on doing so. Few people could have berated him and his colleagues for such a decision. When just about every other magazine in the free world fails to uphold the values of free speech and the right to caricature and offend, who could expect a group of cartoonists and writers who have already paid such a high price to keep holding the line of such freedoms single-handed?

Now, at the second anniversary of the atrocity, one of the magazine's most prominent figures, Zineb El Rhazoui, has announced that she is leaving the magazine. El Rhazoui, who has been described as "the most protected woman in France" because of the security detail she receives from the French state, has announced that Charlie Hebdo has gone "soft" on Islamic radicalism. She told Agence France-Presse that "Charlie Hebdo died on [7 January 2015]." The magazine had previously had a "capacity to carry the torch of irreverence and absolute liberty" she said. "Freedom at any cost is what I loved about Charlie Hebdo, where I worked through great adversity.'

Of course, El Rhazoui is an unusual person. And a scarce one in twenty-first century Europe. Which is why she needs the security detail. Most of the people who said they cared about the right to say what they wanted when they wanted, about everything and anything -- including one particularly stern and unamused religion -- were willing to walk the walk: that is, they were willing to walk through Paris with a pencil in the air. Or they were willing to talk the talk, proclaiming "Je Suis Charlie." But almost no one really meant it. If they had, then -- as Mark Steyn pointed out -- those crowds in Paris would not have been parading through the streets holding pencils, but holding cartoons of Mohammed. "You're going to have to get us all" would have been the message.

And ditto the leaders. If President François Hollande and Chancellor Angela Merkel had really believed in standing up for freedom of expression, then instead of walking arm-in-arm through Paris together with such an inappropriate figure as Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, they would have held up covers of Charlie Hebdo and said: "This is what a free society looks like and this is what we back: everyone, political leaders, gods, prophets, the lot can be satirised, and if you do not like it then you should hop off to whatever unenlightened hell-hole you dream of. But Europe is not the continent for you."

Instead, in the two years since those gestures, European society went quiet. Of course, there have been regular opportunities to display the modern idea of virtue, often using Charlie Hebdo as the punching bag. Since being alerted to the existence of the magazine by the gunmen, the censorious types who now fill our societies (and who probably do not even buy or read magazines) nevertheless regularly send out social media messages objecting to things to which they have been alerted within the magazine.

So it is that a rude and satirical magazine has found itself repeatedly judged by the humourless morality police of our day and often deemed to be insufficiently reverential about various world events. A Charlie Hebdo cartoon about the Cologne New Year's Eve sexual assaults was deemed in poor taste. Elsewhere, the publication's response to an earthquake in Italy failed to hit the single acceptable note in the eyes of some non-readers. Likewise the crash of a Russian jet and other stories that were considered to lack appropriate piety.

Meantime, we are in a situation, as the British author Kenan Malik said of the period after the Satanic Verses affair, of having "internalised" the atrocity. The entire world press -- perhaps especially, in free countries -- has internalised what happened at Charlie Hebdo, and instead of standing united has decided, quietly and in the privacy of their own offices, never to risk something like that ever happening to them again. This new submission to Islamist terrorist demands is possibly why, in 2016, when an athlete with no involvement in politics, religion or satire was caught doing something that might have been seen as less than fully respectful of Islam, there was no one around to defend him. Even the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, asked in the House of Commons to stand up for the right of an athlete not to have his career destroyed because of one fleeting, drunken joke, equivocated:

"This is a balance that we need to find. We value freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this country -- that is absolutely essential in underpinning our democracy.

 

"But we also value tolerance to others. We also value tolerance in relation to religions. This is one of the issues that we have looked at in the counter-extremism strategy that the Government has produced.

 

"I think we need to ensure that yes it is right that people can have that freedom of expression, but in doing so that right has a responsibility too -- and that is a responsibility to recognise the importance of tolerance to others."

For the last two years, we have learned for certain that any such tolerance is a one-way street. Our societies had been walking up it. But from the other direction came the Kalashnikov brigade who only had to fire once; in the face of it, the whole civilised world chose to U-turn and run back the other way. Allah's blasphemy police would be foolish not to push the advantage that such capitulation gives their cause over the months and years ahead.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
iAmerican3's picture
iAmerican3 (not verified) Jan 16, 2017 10:44 AM

Hebdo has been proven a hoax/psyop. Why play along?

A. Boaty's picture

Agreed. Don't let them control the story.

Stainless Steel Rat's picture
Stainless Steel Rat (not verified) A. Boaty Jan 16, 2017 11:08 AM

My daughter always wanted to get married as a little girl.

So we converted to Islam.

xythras's picture

Podesta & libtards like little children so they brought in a lot of islamists in order to hide among them. #pizzagate

That's their hobby, and peddling global warming stories to fill their campaign coffers with the carbon taxes.

http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-01-16/podestas-political-power-pushe...

 

crazzziecanuck's picture

No it's not.

Stupidity is.

I'm going to catch flak for this, but France got what it deserved when it decided to bomb Libya.  Westerners all love to pontificate about how they are the penultimate moralistic beings devoted fully to "human rights" then turn around and regime change and bomb whichever Muslim country they deem as violating their belief system.

We lose 4 people and it's an international outrage!  Yet when we kill 200 Muslims is merely a slow day.  Doesn't even make the news.  And then you get some people going off about how the "white race" is being genocided.  lol

You cannot go around and proclaim how Islamic terrorism is bad when we turn around and turning weddings into pink mist and double-tap strikes that take out first responders.  But that's the beauty of isolated leadership.  They know full well they will not really be held accountable for the deaths of people.  Our western leadership is likely even more willing to sacrifice it's own population (and ideals) for the sake of it's collective groupthink.  In that respect, it's difficult to see how the leadership of NATO countries ends and the ISIS government in Raqqa begins.  Douchebags, the lot of 'em.

It's pretty clear to me that our own leadership is desiring acts of terrorism to be unleashed upon it's own population just by their own actions.  And how is our leadership getting into power?  The stupidity of the voter.

Cynicles's picture

"...regime change and bomb whichever Muslim country they deem as violating their belief system."

Neither religion, race not culture have anything to do with why the nations rolled by the US were selected.

The reason being quite simple. Look to the nations that were not part of the Rothschilds central bank and you will find your answer.

Not many remain: Syria and Iran are two of the remaining five, unless another was sacked while this was being written. 

NidStyles's picture

Until Europe can have a valid and honest discussion about that stuff that went down in WWII, they will never have peace.

As long as it's illegal for them to ask questions about WWII, they are nothing more than indentured servants, or rather tax-farm slaves. They will be let go when they finally stop lying to themselves and push out the foreign controllers.

Until then, there is no true German country. Germany died when that war was lost. What we see now is mild farce of what the Germans really are as a people.

BrownCoat's picture

@crazzziecanuck, 

The author was talking about Islam being intolerant. Your comment was France had it coming. Regardless whether or not France or the USSA even exists, Islam would *still* be intolerant. Islam would still support slavery. Islam would still treat Mohammed as a god. And Islam would still believe that killing people is a good.

J S Bach's picture

It sure as hell IS a one-way street.  Let's see Hebdo do a few spoofs on Rabbinical tenets and behavior and see how long their "freedom of speech" lasts.  We either allow ALL faiths to be subject to ridicule and humor - or we courteously respect them all... there can be no other peaceful solution.

YHC-FTSE's picture

+1 It's another Gatestone zionist puff piece to stir up the usual apes.

I remember saying "Je suis Maurice Sinet" when that whole crap was going on. Maurice worked at Charlie Hebdo for 20 years and was fired in 2009 for merely mocking Sarkozy's son's relationship with a wealthy jewish woman that was deemed to be "anti-semetic". Yet, you know it's apparently kosher to incite the fuck out of other religions....Some creatures are more equal than others I guess.

That sick fuck Netenyahu using these terrorist events to prance around Paris was another disgusting display of power (His plane landed in Paris without permission and was allowed to go on walkabouts without invite) and the zionist penchant for squeezing as much profit out of chaos.

As for the article's assertion of tolerance, I wonder how tolerant we christians would be if some fucker was busy murdering millions of us, bombing our countries, aiding terrorists and making millions more of us refugee pariahs, hated by virtually every community in the West incited by the zionist mainstream media 24/7? I can tell you tolerance is not and never has been a christian virtue, especially tolerance of evil. I reject the modern PC brigade imploring tolerance of jewish zionists, muslim wahabis and christian zionist bastards. They can all go to hell, especially this Gatestone fucker constantly trying to incite hatred, division and war.

Consuelo's picture

 

 

++

"...and the zionist penchant for squeezing as much profit out of chaos."

 

Wise (and correct) observation.   It is how the few control the many.   Via Finance, Academia, Hollywood and Big Media.  

YHC-FTSE's picture

Cheers mates (Consuelo and S_A_O). You should too, since I really appreciate your posts. Just as long as you will give me constructive criticism when you eventually find something I post that you disagree with. :)

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

It helps to keep in mind that Gatestone is not an institute, but an institution, the kind with padded walls and orderlies in white suits, where one can spend hours in the day ward engaged in conversation with neighbors like Jesus and Napoleon. It's the only way to explain their "client"-written articles which rely upon double standards in order to condemn double standards.

https://pp.vk.me/c7007/v7007928/1fb40/Y0eMCjfn2Is.jpg

http://cs540100.vk.me/c622718/v622718710/139c8/d8HAzDHbaGo.jpg

Cynicles's picture

the Banksters are notorious for generating conflict and war - they always win, they lend money to both sides

Dark star's picture

Whilst admitting that your assertion might possibly be true, it is reasonable to ask you to provide links to the evidence which proves to you that that is the case, so that we can judge for ourselves.

 

downwiththebanks's picture

I'm afraid that's not how evidence works.  

The real question is why ZeroHedge presents the unsubstantiated, unproven and dubious claims of the French government and media whores as fact.

iAmerican3's picture
iAmerican3 (not verified) Dark star Jan 16, 2017 4:54 PM

The filmed "surreal" and dilatory conduct of the "assassins" out front, and the fake "kill shot" on the sidewalk above the head of the gendarme, "supporting actor."

Azannoth's picture

The "blood" in their offices resembled wet paint - maybe because it was wet paint

L Bean's picture

Consider the source. Charlie Hebdo/Gatestone. Tomato/Tomahto.

taketheredpill's picture

 

 

Freedom means having the freedom to bomb the hell out of foreign countries to the point where religious fanatics are willing to come to your country and kill people.

 

boattrash's picture

Freedom means Charlie would've had a gun too.

Creative_Destruct's picture
Is Tolerance A One-Way Street?

UHHHHHH..... YES (DUH)!

But let's not fall for the use of this obvious observation as a Neocon (Gatestone) ploy to argue for interventionism.

nmewn's picture

Its really true, Hollande should be more careful with his air force.

taketheredpill's picture

 

 

GOOGLE "GATESTONE" AND "SEARS-ROEBUCK HEIRESS"

 

You're Welcome.

 

LetThemEatRand's picture

Gatestone is neo-conism personified.   Doesn't mean they are not correct about the intolerance of Islam as practiced by much of the world.  Gatestone is using a valid point to support an invalid conclusion -- e.g., that the West has the right or even the duty to constantly bomb the shit out of the Muslim world.    The reality is that Gatestone and their ilk use hatred and prejudice to garner support for US interventionalist policies in the ME that have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with oil/global power.

Snípéir_Ag_Obair's picture

+1, but

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/12/us-caught-faking-it-in-syria/

'Greater Israel' and Jewish donations constituting around half of private campaign donations, decades of Zionist Jewish papers re destroying Syria and Iraq... have a great deal to do with US policy, which is to Syraq what Israeli policy as to Gaza and Lebanon has been.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/04/25/is-the-us-waging-israel-s-wars/

You have to grasp that the neocon movement, as a matter of FACT, was Jewish, Zionist, and militarist in its origins.

Its getting the US to fight ISRAEL's wars. I think you understand this though you may think it of less import which is fine, but given who has power and influence in Congress, Wall St, and K Street... given Zionist papers... its about Greater Israel and Oded Yinon's plan.

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2013/06/the-machiavelian-threefold-game-of-the-...

nevertheless's picture

Exactly...first thing I did was google Gatestone, then knew the bias inherent in this article.

nmewn's picture

Tolerance...lol...now where on Earth did this novel concept come from? 

LawsofPhysics's picture

Exactly.  Evolution isn't successful because of "tolerance". Humanity continues to devolve as far as I can tell.

crazzziecanuck's picture

Earliest record of tolerance?  Cyrus II of Persia.

That's right folks.  It wasn't derived from white people.

stocker84's picture

You're talking about the noble media?

Is this a memorial piece.... Looks like it.

Ya, we know... It's all dead.
Been dead for decades now.

Intelligence_Insulter's picture

"diversity" is a one way street.  straight ass.

CheapBastard's picture

"diversity" means no whites [or Asians] allowed.

Fireman's picture

The sand religions have no place in the West. Not the allah mutts nor the chosen racers.

ipso_facto's picture

'The sand religions have no place in the West. Not the allah mutts nor the chosen racers.'

Odin smiled.

Sandmann's picture

L Ron Hubbard .... the American Mohammed

canisdirus's picture

Actually, that would be Joseph Smith...

crazzziecanuck's picture

You'd have to include Christianity in that as well.

A. Boaty's picture

Zero tolerance for psychopaths.

ipso_facto's picture

Deport before it's too late!

downwiththebanks's picture

ZeroHedge pumping the CIA line again.

Sources said that anonyous illegitimate intelligence sources say that cops found a"Tyler Durden" passport on the scene:  the fake-libertarian editors of this fake news piece are GUILTY, sources say.

Beyond doubt, without question.

tictawk's picture

Morality police will criticize Charlie Hebdo for any lampooning of Muhammad but they will stay silent when lampooning Christianity.  They are in fact moral cowards.  

Sparehead's picture

The new editor says the magazine had "done its job" and "defended the right to caricature" and somehow is delusional enough to not realize this is an admission that they had fought their good fight and were now surrendering.

didthatreallyhappen's picture

no need, it scared the terrorists sooooooo much.

Snípéir_Ag_Obair's picture

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/15-signs-charlie-hebdo-attack-was-fa...

http://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2015/01/mossad-attacks-paris.html

The attack on Charlie Hebdo was run by the Israelis...

look for video of Netanyahu in France right after...

he had the same joy and feelings of accomplishment on his face that he had after 9/11.