LanceFreeman
Mayor
The attack on the editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo, which resulted in the death of 12 people, shocked and horrified the French public. The video images, viewed by millions, of the gunmen firing their weapons and killing an already-wounded policeman, traumatized the average Frenchman, played havoc with his emotions, and impaired his ability to critically think. In this traumatized state, he was now at the mercy of the state apparatus. As in the aftermath of 9/11, the state and media moved quickly to exploit the fear and the confusion of the public, in order to whip up support for war abroad and draconian measures at home.
In 2003, when the Bush administration invaded Iraq, French popular opposition was so overwhelming that the government, led by President Jacques Chirac, was compelled to oppose the war, even in the face of massive political pressure from the United States. Now, 12 years later, as President François Hollande is striving to transform France into a key ally of the United States in the “War on Terror,” the attack in Paris plays into his hands. The corporate media in France, as in the United States, skillfully supports Hollande by manipulating the flow of information so that it appeals to the basest instincts of the mass public, which is soon out on the streets, venting anger against those savage Muslims, and demanding that 'something be done'. Rewind, reset, repeat. We are revisiting the aftermath of 9/11 all over again.
Throughout Europe and the United States, the claim is being made that the attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo was an assault on the freedom of the press and the unalienable right of journalists, in a democratic society, to express themselves without loss of freedom, or fear for their lives. The killing of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and editors is being proclaimed an assault on the principles of free speech that are, supposedly, held so dear in Europe and the United States. The attack on Charlie Hebdo is thus presented as another outrage by Muslims, who cannot tolerate Western "freedoms". From this rather dubious conclusion, another conclusion must be drawn: that the “War on Terror” (i.e. the imperialist onslaught on the Middle East and North Africa), is an unavoidable necessity.
In the midst of this orgy of democratic hypocrisy, no reference is made to the fact that the American military, in the course of its wars in the Middle East, is responsible for the deaths of at least 15 journalists. In the on-going narrative of “Freedom of Speech Under Attack,” there is no place for any mention of the 2003 air-to-surface missile attack on the offices of Al Jazeera in Baghdad that left three journalists dead and four wounded.
Nor is anything being written, or said, about the July 2007 murder of two Reuters journalists working in Baghdad (staff photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Sa'eed Chmagh). Both men were deliberately targeted by US Apache gunships while on assignment in East Baghdad.
The American (and international) public was first able to view a video of the cold-blooded murder of the two journalists, as well as a nearby group of Iraqis—taken from one of the gunships—as the result of the release, by WikiLeaks, of classified material that it had obtained from an American soldier, Corporal Bradley Manning.
And how has the United States and Europe acted to protect WikiLeaks’ exercise of free speech? Julian Assange, the founder and publisher of WikiLeaks, has been subjected to relentless persecution. Leading political and media figures in the United States and Canada have denounced him as a “terrorist” and demanded his arrest, with some even calling publicly for his murder. Assange is being pursued on fraudulent “rape” allegations concocted by American and Swedish intelligence services. He has been compelled to seek sanctuary in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which is under constant guard by British police, who will seize Assange if he steps out of the embassy. As for Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning), he is presently in prison, serving out a 35-year sentence imposed by a military court.
That is how the great capitalist “democracies” of North America and Europe have demonstrated their commitment to free speech and the safety of journalists!
The dishonest and hypocritical narrative spun out by the state and the media requires that Charlie Hebdo and its murdered cartoonists be upheld as martyrs to free speech and representatives of a revered democratic tradition of hard-hitting iconoclastic journalism.
To speak bluntly and honestly about the sordid, cynical and degraded character of Charlie Hebdo is not to condone the killing of its personnel. But when the slogan “I am Charlie” is adopted and heavily promoted by the media as the slogan of protest demonstrations, those who have not been overwhelmed by state and media propaganda are obligated to reply: “We oppose the violent assault on the magazine, but we are not "Charlie.’”
The cynically provocative anti-Muslim caricatures that have appeared on so many covers of Charlie Hebdo have pandered to and facilitated the growth of right-wing chauvinist movements in France. It is absurd to claim, by way of defense of Charlie Hebdo, that its cartoons are all “in good fun” and have no political consequences. Aside from the fact that the French government is desperate to rally support for its growing military agenda in Africa and the Middle East.
France is a country where the influence of the neo-fascist National Front is growing rapidly. In this political context, Charlie Hebdo has facilitated the growth of a form of politicized anti-Muslim sentiment that bears a disturbing resemblance to the politicized anti-Semitism that emerged as a mass movement in France in the 1890's.
In its use of crude and vulgar caricatures that purvey a sinister and stereotyped image of Muslims, Charlie Hebdo recalls the cheap racist publications that played a significant role in fostering the anti-Semitic agitation that swept France during the famous Dreyfus Affair, which erupted in 1894 after a Jewish officer was accused and falsely convicted of espionage on behalf of Germany. In whipping up popular hatred of Jews, La Libre Parole[“Free Speech”], published by the infamous Edoard Adolfe Drumont, made highly effective use of cartoons that employed familiar anti-Semitic devices. The caricatures served to inflame public opinion, inciting mobs against Dreyfus and his courageous defenders, such as author, Emile Zola. Rewind, reset, repeat.
"There is evidence of a deliberate campaign of provocation by European newspapers to inflame Muslims, and that responsibility can be traced to the CFR, and its sister organizations in Europe."
----Barry Chamish, Bye-Bye Gaza
In 2003, when the Bush administration invaded Iraq, French popular opposition was so overwhelming that the government, led by President Jacques Chirac, was compelled to oppose the war, even in the face of massive political pressure from the United States. Now, 12 years later, as President François Hollande is striving to transform France into a key ally of the United States in the “War on Terror,” the attack in Paris plays into his hands. The corporate media in France, as in the United States, skillfully supports Hollande by manipulating the flow of information so that it appeals to the basest instincts of the mass public, which is soon out on the streets, venting anger against those savage Muslims, and demanding that 'something be done'. Rewind, reset, repeat. We are revisiting the aftermath of 9/11 all over again.
Throughout Europe and the United States, the claim is being made that the attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo was an assault on the freedom of the press and the unalienable right of journalists, in a democratic society, to express themselves without loss of freedom, or fear for their lives. The killing of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and editors is being proclaimed an assault on the principles of free speech that are, supposedly, held so dear in Europe and the United States. The attack on Charlie Hebdo is thus presented as another outrage by Muslims, who cannot tolerate Western "freedoms". From this rather dubious conclusion, another conclusion must be drawn: that the “War on Terror” (i.e. the imperialist onslaught on the Middle East and North Africa), is an unavoidable necessity.
In the midst of this orgy of democratic hypocrisy, no reference is made to the fact that the American military, in the course of its wars in the Middle East, is responsible for the deaths of at least 15 journalists. In the on-going narrative of “Freedom of Speech Under Attack,” there is no place for any mention of the 2003 air-to-surface missile attack on the offices of Al Jazeera in Baghdad that left three journalists dead and four wounded.
Nor is anything being written, or said, about the July 2007 murder of two Reuters journalists working in Baghdad (staff photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Sa'eed Chmagh). Both men were deliberately targeted by US Apache gunships while on assignment in East Baghdad.
The American (and international) public was first able to view a video of the cold-blooded murder of the two journalists, as well as a nearby group of Iraqis—taken from one of the gunships—as the result of the release, by WikiLeaks, of classified material that it had obtained from an American soldier, Corporal Bradley Manning.
And how has the United States and Europe acted to protect WikiLeaks’ exercise of free speech? Julian Assange, the founder and publisher of WikiLeaks, has been subjected to relentless persecution. Leading political and media figures in the United States and Canada have denounced him as a “terrorist” and demanded his arrest, with some even calling publicly for his murder. Assange is being pursued on fraudulent “rape” allegations concocted by American and Swedish intelligence services. He has been compelled to seek sanctuary in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which is under constant guard by British police, who will seize Assange if he steps out of the embassy. As for Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning), he is presently in prison, serving out a 35-year sentence imposed by a military court.
That is how the great capitalist “democracies” of North America and Europe have demonstrated their commitment to free speech and the safety of journalists!
The dishonest and hypocritical narrative spun out by the state and the media requires that Charlie Hebdo and its murdered cartoonists be upheld as martyrs to free speech and representatives of a revered democratic tradition of hard-hitting iconoclastic journalism.
To speak bluntly and honestly about the sordid, cynical and degraded character of Charlie Hebdo is not to condone the killing of its personnel. But when the slogan “I am Charlie” is adopted and heavily promoted by the media as the slogan of protest demonstrations, those who have not been overwhelmed by state and media propaganda are obligated to reply: “We oppose the violent assault on the magazine, but we are not "Charlie.’”
The cynically provocative anti-Muslim caricatures that have appeared on so many covers of Charlie Hebdo have pandered to and facilitated the growth of right-wing chauvinist movements in France. It is absurd to claim, by way of defense of Charlie Hebdo, that its cartoons are all “in good fun” and have no political consequences. Aside from the fact that the French government is desperate to rally support for its growing military agenda in Africa and the Middle East.
France is a country where the influence of the neo-fascist National Front is growing rapidly. In this political context, Charlie Hebdo has facilitated the growth of a form of politicized anti-Muslim sentiment that bears a disturbing resemblance to the politicized anti-Semitism that emerged as a mass movement in France in the 1890's.
In its use of crude and vulgar caricatures that purvey a sinister and stereotyped image of Muslims, Charlie Hebdo recalls the cheap racist publications that played a significant role in fostering the anti-Semitic agitation that swept France during the famous Dreyfus Affair, which erupted in 1894 after a Jewish officer was accused and falsely convicted of espionage on behalf of Germany. In whipping up popular hatred of Jews, La Libre Parole[“Free Speech”], published by the infamous Edoard Adolfe Drumont, made highly effective use of cartoons that employed familiar anti-Semitic devices. The caricatures served to inflame public opinion, inciting mobs against Dreyfus and his courageous defenders, such as author, Emile Zola. Rewind, reset, repeat.
"There is evidence of a deliberate campaign of provocation by European newspapers to inflame Muslims, and that responsibility can be traced to the CFR, and its sister organizations in Europe."
----Barry Chamish, Bye-Bye Gaza
