When a dramatic and bloody event occurs such as the killings in Paris of twelve people today, the general reaction is to see it as a single event, mindless and devoid of motivation. It’s also been my experience that for someone to suggest that the event has other dimensions besides a mindless and murderous assault is to invite ( ironically) annoyance/anger/murderous rage. With that thought in mind, allow me to consider these killings at the magazine offices today.
The killers clearly had knowledge of the journalists’ timetable, since they launched their assault during an editorial meeting, which meant they had all the people they wanted to kill gathered in one room. Why did they launch the assault? For the same reason they firebombed the building some time back: because they objected to the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad which the magazine was producing. As the killers left today, we’re told, one of them shouted “We have avenged the prophet Muhammad!” or words to that effect. Francois Hollande, the French President, has denounced their assault as an attack on free speech and democracy, not just in France but throughout the world. I’d say that’s a fair statement. But let me tell you about an event that’s not totally unrelated.
A few days ago I was asked to take part in a radio discussion of Channel 4’s plans to host a new sitcom based on the Irish Famine. My liberal instincts said that while it might be testing stuff, making fun of the Famine was legitimate, since everything should be open to lampooning and mockery. Otherwise you close down on all the things you dislike.
But then, I thought, what about a sitcom centring around the death of Ian Paisley? Or one based on 9/11 – all those foolish people jumping out the window to their deaths in order to avoid the flames. Or a sitcom on child sexual abuse: since most sexual abuse happens in the home, that’d fit neatly, wouldn’t it? Or a sitcom on the Ethiopian famine.
As I mentally listed these, it struck me that perhaps after all there are things which should be protected from mockery. The Great Hunger is one of these. The death of Ian Paisley is another. And child sexual abuse. And 9/11. In other words, my initial stance that all is fair game for satire collapsed in the face of…you could call it ‘good taste’ but a more accurate term might be ‘respect’. Because there are things which people hold so dear, that have such meaning for them, they deserve our respect. Not that we share their views but that we respect their views.
Which brings us back to today’s attack. The killers clearly believed a blasphemous, sectarian attack had been made repeatedly on the prophet they cherish. And that is why they launched their murderous assault.
So the bloody tale has more than one element. The first is that the cartoonists at the magazine deliberately mocked somebody whom Muslims revere. Which does sound like sectarianism. Remember how Catholics felt when, at the Oxford Union in the early 1960s, Ian Paisley mocked Catholic belief in transubstantiation? You don’t have to share the belief in order to see it as offensive. The second is that sectarianism doesn’t carry the death penalty – otherwise there’d be an awful lot of people killed here. And the fact that sectarianism doesn’t carry the death penalty is what makes the assault on the journalists bloody, cruel and ultimately unjustified.
To be fair to Ian Paisley Jude, you could not but mock the belief in transubstantiation.
Well of course you could mock it if you wished. But a great number of people reverence it as central to their religious faith. I don’t think mocking religious faiths with which I disagree is a grown-up way to act.
Christ himself refers to those people who doubt the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood, it`s actually in the Bible, JOHN 6:53
??? They are mental end of story. They dont need an excuse to be offended to carry out any action. Video of the poor wounded policeman being shot at close range just shows the level of madness we are dealing with.
That’s one view of it. I think they acted as they did not because they’re mad but because they believed their religion had been insulted – which it had – and that they were entitled to attack and kill those who’d insulted it. Which of course was totally wrong. And, I imagine but don’t know, against the teachings of Islam.
The answer is respect for other people`s religious beliefs. I looked at some of the cartoons on the Charlie website, most were disgusting portrayals of the Pope or Mohammed or a Rabbi indulging in sex acts. Now I can just ignore these hateful things but if I am a radicalised young Arab then I am going to reach for my weapons. Religious belief is something people hold very dear and although it is irrational to athiests and I rather suspect those poor unfortunates who were murdered in Paris were probably athiests, some people can react in a totally irrational way.Anti Catholic bigotry is the most prominent form of hate crime in this part of the World but we can live with that. We are sort of used to it after a few hundred years. It has become institutionalised.
Actually, boondock, the thought has just struck me – cui bono? Who gains by these killings? The right-wing, anti-Islam constituency of Le Pen. The attackers spoke with French accents. Could it be…? It’s conceivable.
You’ll be promoting Area 51 next if you’re not careful there Jude.The conspiracy theorists need no help from us.To be fair you’ve allowed me to promote my views uncensored many times when they have radically diverged from your own.Well let us say we view things through differing lenses sometimes and views can change too.on this case as you’ve already posted elsewhere I totally support the satirists and the cartoonists to make commentary and art that offends the status quo.If a belief is strong enough to be taken as truth it should have no trouble brushing off the commentary and critiques of non believers without any resort to barbarous bloodshed which only proves that the killers are no more than 21st century barbarians incapable of making any other intelligent response.As you know too we differ on the censorship involved with the Famine drama.Nothing humans do should be beyond laughter otherwise we would appear even more pompous and absurd than w already are.
Jude
Mockery should be addressed at the powerful not the weak. Major world religions are powerful influential organisations in our society so it is reasonable to point out their shortcomings. When church and state are closely aligned as has been the case here historically, then it is certainly a fair target for satire.
Transubstantiation and other mystic rituals are hard not to mock when adults claim to believe in them. However if they keep it to themselves that is their business.
And did you not have one or two digs at the young earth belief of some of our local representatives?
Jude. I am at a complete loss. Can you revisit your last blog? Live in the moment and condemn rather than engage in condemnation of free speech
Dave Allen came to mind when I read the comments. He had the ability to recognise and express incongruities present in a situation or character(s). At one level, he wished to amuse but at another level he wanted people to question absurdities in human nature and conduct.
Shakespeare’s fools were more than jesters, using humour to question and challenge the complexity in relationships. In Shakespeare’s case, it would appear that the last laugh has yet to be heard. An auditor would be hard pressed to find a poem, letter or play written by the bard. ‘Shakespeare in Court’ by Alexander Waugh asserts that Shakespeare was a pseudonym for someone who wished to keep his/her identity secret.
“That of course, is the great secret of the successful fool – that he is no fool at all.” Isaac Asimov
The French Republic and its citizens value free speech. French literature has influenced many Irish writers such as Joyce and Beckett. The perpetrators of today’s massacre attempted to attack core French values. They failed and will continue to fail. To the deceased and their families, ní maith liom do thrioblóid.
On the last day of the very first week in the new year The Usain Bolt Annual Award for the Irish Media Outlet quickest out of the blocks has already been nailed down by none other than ….The Irish Independent.
The Irish Independent is also known as D’Indo which is not at all to be confused with the French word ‘dindon’ although the confusion is understandable as ‘dindon’ means ‘turkey’.
There was one already in the throes of containing one’s eau/water at the prospect of the splash its bigger sister paper, the Sunday Independent Cult (sic) would make of the Paris massacre. (Sic) is right: Where Truth is confined to Trolleys.
One imagined the special solemn edition, suitably edged in black with the stark headline commandeering the entire front page, in block capitals: ‘IT COULD HAVE BEEN US’.
But, before one could even say ‘je ne sais quoi’ who tweets in, only one the unbeatable tweeters of her day in yesterday’s on line edish of D’Indo: ‘Today’s events show up Adams ‘joking’ about shooting editors is not funny’.
And then, as a afterthought, the one who was making the distinctive ‘lightning bolt’ gesture with her hands – Mairia Cahill (for it was she !) – had bleat-twitted as an afterthougtht: ‘Some maniacs do’.
Talk about beating Perkie to the Punch !
Now as Usain Bolt stands all of 6 foot 5 inches tall in his non spiked shoes, -thereby winning for himself the sobriquet ‘Long John Gold’ – it is only fair to point out that Mairia Cahill is fada also, both in name and stature.
The truth of the old adage is still as fresh today as the day it was first coined:
‘D’Indon unchained to beat is always hard
When it comes to publishing the old canard’.
Incidentally, the incident which the suitably bearded Caliph of Bogdad found so ‘funny’ involved the Pin Up Plugger of Indotown. That would have been Plug, the tallest,lankiest leader of the Bash Street Gang who precipitated Bloody Sunday on Black Saturday back in 1920.Specifially, by doing ‘Le Charlie Hebdob’ on the peacekeepers in their sleeping quarters on Mount Street, Upper and Lower.Or, indeed, in sleeping quarters that might not even have been their own.
Plug had an uncanny talent for evading capture by the lawful forces of Law and Lawyers. This was mainly down to his skill at self disguise. This enabled him to camouflage his hideously handsome face by means of a bogus overbite and the insertion of two buck teeth. Thus, he became just another face in the diurnal Dublin crowd.
As an aid to passing himself off as a semi-anonymous Sean Citizen he called himself ‘Percival Proudfoot Plugsby’ even though his real name was ‘Michael Collins’. The triple P-pseudonym was possibly prompted by the fact that he was, in fact, the Proto Provo Plugger.
For some reason which Perkie’s inner member of Densa has never been quite able to grasp the bearded Caliph of Bogdad has yet to be invited to deliver the oraysh at the Blueshirted Annual Beano at Bealnablath Ambush Site in the Cork Panhandle.
They can be a tad funny in that regard, like. As the most curse-freighted cursory glance at the red-topped organ of the Blueshirts, the Sunday Independent Cult (sic) can confirm.
And not only funny peculiar but funny hilarious too. As Eyleash O’Handup’s piece on the, erm, ‘lunatics of the social media’ recently reminded one. Talk about a thigh-slapper !
During which she – and not in a shy way – namechecks Mairia Fada, prompting one to wonder, and not for the first time, whether MF and Miss O Handup are in any way, perchance, related?
In the meanwhile, in these dark, sullen days, we have Miss Eyelash O’Handup’s uplifting piece next Sunday to look forward to in particular:
– ‘Je Suis Eyelash’.
So called comedians should be grateful Christians and specifically Catholics do not reach for Kalishnikovs every time their faith is insulted.