THE remaining writers and cartoonists of the crude and disgusting French magazine Charlie Hebdo have churned out their first issue since the massacre, and it proclaims their complete nihilism — and a subtle form of submission to Islam. The cover shows Muhammad with a sign that says “Je Suis Charlie.” Beneath it is text that says, “All is forgiven.” The idea is that it’s all just a joke. Nothing is serious — not even a massacre. They can even joke in the immediate aftermath of bloodshed in their own offices. They must protect the right to joke — and immediately forgive those who take them a tad too seriously.

But, wait, cartoonist Renald Luzier, says it is all serious too. The aim is to mock all religion. Luzier made this confusing and contradictory statement to the press:

‘We will not give in,’ he told a radio station. ‘The spirit of “Je suis Charlie” means the right to blaspheme.

‘We will not give in otherwise all this won’t have meant anything. A Je Suis Charlie banner means you have the right to criticise my religion, because it’s not serious.

‘We have never criticised a Jew because he’s a Jew, a Muslim because he’s a Muslim or a Christian because he’s a Christian.

‘But you can say anything you like, the worst horrors – and we do – about Christianity, Judaism and Islam, because behind the nice slogans, that’s the reality of Charlie Hebdo.’

Up to 3 million copies of Charlie Hebdo – whose usual circulation is 60,000 – will be printed on Wednesday.

— Comments —

TK writes:

It’s amazing to me that millions will come to the defense of weasels like these “journalists”, yet won’t come to the aid of those who truly have the French people’s best interest at heart.

William writes:

I’m beginning to wonder if this response to the cartoon massacre should really be about freedom of speech.  The response now is to publish the cartoons and to profess allegiance to the cartoonists.  I believe the attention is not being focused on the actual problem.  Could the real culprit in the massacre be incitement to murder?  Here is an analogy:  Three fanatics attack a group of women on a street, then shoot and kill them all.  They were murdered because they were wearing short skirts.  Everybody is upset about the murders and begins a campaign about freedom to dress as one likes.  In order to demonstrate support for the women murdered, a campaign encouraging women to wear short skirts while walking on the streets begins.  Now many women are wearing short skirts, even though they never would have normally done so.  So, what is the point of doing that?  Shouldn’t the campaign be focused on why the men committed the murders?  And when the motivation for it is found, that motivation should be exposed for everyone to see and for it to be condemned?  I believe the current campaign is a deliberate attempt to draw attention away from the real problem.

Laura writes:

It’s an evasion, as has been said by others (See here and here). And it’s also hypocritical.

Please follow and like us: