What do you think?
Rate this book
Open Letter: On Blasphemy, Islamophobia, and the True Enemies of Free Expression
An impassioned defense of the freedom of speech, from Stéphane Charbonnier, a journalist murdered for his convictions
On January 7, 2015, two gunmen stormed the offices of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. They took the lives of twelve men and women, but they called for one man by name: "Charb."
Known by his pen name, Stéphane Charbonnier was editor in chief of Charlie Hebdo, an outspoken critic of religious fundamentalism, and a renowned political cartoonist in his own right. In the past, he had received death threats and had even earned a place on Al Qaeda's "Most Wanted List." On January 7 it seemed that Charb's enemies had finally succeeded in silencing him. But in a twist of fate befitting Charb's defiant nature, it was soon revealed that he had finished a book just two days before his murder on the very issues at the heart of the attacks: blasphemy, Islamophobia, and the necessary courage of satirists.
Here, published for the first time in English, is Charb's final work. A searing criticism of hypocrisy and racism, and a rousing, eloquent defense of free speech, Open Letter shows Charb's words to be as powerful and provocative as his art. This is an essential book about race, religion, the voice of ethnic minorities and majorities in a pluralistic society, and above all, the right to free expression and the surprising challenges being leveled at it in our fraught and dangerous time.
On January 7, 2015, two gunmen stormed the offices of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. They took the lives of twelve men and women, but they called for one man by name: "Charb."
Known by his pen name, Stéphane Charbonnier was editor in chief of Charlie Hebdo, an outspoken critic of religious fundamentalism, and a renowned political cartoonist in his own right. In the past, he had received death threats and had even earned a place on Al Qaeda's "Most Wanted List." On January 7 it seemed that Charb's enemies had finally succeeded in silencing him. But in a twist of fate befitting Charb's defiant nature, it was soon revealed that he had finished a book just two days before his murder on the very issues at the heart of the attacks: blasphemy, Islamophobia, and the necessary courage of satirists.
Here, published for the first time in English, is Charb's final work. A searing criticism of hypocrisy and racism, and a rousing, eloquent defense of free speech, Open Letter shows Charb's words to be as powerful and provocative as his art. This is an essential book about race, religion, the voice of ethnic minorities and majorities in a pluralistic society, and above all, the right to free expression and the surprising challenges being leveled at it in our fraught and dangerous time.
96 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2015
About the author
Charb
63 books15 followersPseudonym of Stéphane Charbonnier
Charb worked for many newspapers, Charlie Hebdo – which he edited from 2009 until his death in 2015 – L'Écho des savanes, Télérama, Fluide glacial and L'Humanité. His cartoons, which often feature Maurice et Patapon the anti-capitalist cat and dog, are caustic and irreverent. He also used to draw the character of Marcel Keuf, le flic in Fluide Glacial.
His rubric in the weekly Charlie Hebdo was titled Charb n'aime pas les gens (Charb does not like people).
He used to deliver a monthly chronic titled La fatwa de l'Ayatollah Charb (The Fatwa of the Ayatollah Charb) in the Fluide Glacial magazine. In 2007 and 2008, he also took part in the talk show T'empêches tout le monde de dormir hosted by Marc-Olivier Fogiel on M6 as a set cartoonist.
He was a long time supporter of the French Communist Party and the Left Front.
On 2 November 2011, Charlie Hebdo was firebombed right before its 3 November issue was due; the issue was called Sharia Hebdo and satirically featured the Prophet of Islam Muhammad as guest-editor. Charb and two co-workers at Charlie Hebdo subsequently received police protection.
In September 2012, a man was arrested in La Rochelle for allegedly having called for beheading of Charb at a Jihadist website.
Charb was placed on Al-Qaeda's most-wanted list in 2013 after editing an edition of Charlie Hebdo that satirised the prophet Muhammad.
Charb was killed, along with nine of his colleagues, in the Charlie Hebdo shooting in January 2015.
Source: Wikipedia
Charb worked for many newspapers, Charlie Hebdo – which he edited from 2009 until his death in 2015 – L'Écho des savanes, Télérama, Fluide glacial and L'Humanité. His cartoons, which often feature Maurice et Patapon the anti-capitalist cat and dog, are caustic and irreverent. He also used to draw the character of Marcel Keuf, le flic in Fluide Glacial.
His rubric in the weekly Charlie Hebdo was titled Charb n'aime pas les gens (Charb does not like people).
He used to deliver a monthly chronic titled La fatwa de l'Ayatollah Charb (The Fatwa of the Ayatollah Charb) in the Fluide Glacial magazine. In 2007 and 2008, he also took part in the talk show T'empêches tout le monde de dormir hosted by Marc-Olivier Fogiel on M6 as a set cartoonist.
He was a long time supporter of the French Communist Party and the Left Front.
On 2 November 2011, Charlie Hebdo was firebombed right before its 3 November issue was due; the issue was called Sharia Hebdo and satirically featured the Prophet of Islam Muhammad as guest-editor. Charb and two co-workers at Charlie Hebdo subsequently received police protection.
In September 2012, a man was arrested in La Rochelle for allegedly having called for beheading of Charb at a Jihadist website.
Charb was placed on Al-Qaeda's most-wanted list in 2013 after editing an edition of Charlie Hebdo that satirised the prophet Muhammad.
Charb was killed, along with nine of his colleagues, in the Charlie Hebdo shooting in January 2015.
Source: Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
January 16, 2016
This little book - as the title says, really just a long letter - is the last thing Charb wrote before he and several of his colleagues at Charlie Hebdo were murdered by Saïd and Chérif Kouachi on Jan 7, 2015. Note to other ardent jihadists: if the Kouachi brothers hadn't committed this despicable crime, I would never have read Lettres aux escrocs de l'islamophobie qui font le jeu des racistes and I wouldn't be writing about it now. Remember, the martydom thing works both ways.
I was not particularly impressed by the text, which perhaps would have been edited more carefully if its author had lived longer, but I thought it made some good points. The most important one is to call into question the idea that "Islamophobia" is a bad thing, or indeed a well-defined concept in the first place. As Charb says, racism is indeed a very bad thing. People often denounce "Islamophobia" because they conflate it with racism.
But does this idea stand up to serious examination? Islam is not a race but a religion, a set of ideas and beliefs. It should be possible to express criticism, or indeed violent dislike, for an ideology, without being called racist. Charb argues that talk of "Islamophobia" confuses all these issues. He was very strongly against racism. But he was also very strongly against Islam. He disliked and held in contempt all versions of monotheism, which to him were no more than repressive and dangerous superstitions. It is surely unreasonable to expect an atheist who dislikes Catholicism to like Islam better; it is logical to expect him to like it even less.
Well, I'm inclined to agree with Charb on this. It should be possible to criticize ideologies on the grounds that they are harmful or dangerous, and not be accused of racism. It is generally regarded as acceptable to criticize Stalinism, on the grounds that it was directly responsible for killing millions of people and ruining the lives of tens of millions more. It is similarly regarded as acceptable to criticize Scientology, on similar but less extreme grounds. Believers routinely criticize atheism, which most atheists would immediately agree is their right. Why should Islam be an exception?
Charb comes across as a good-natured person who loves teasing, who can't believe that anyone would really want to kill him because he's constitutionally incapable of passing up an opportunity to make a good joke. And yet he can see that this is what's almost certainly going to happen. He's still not quite sure why. It's very sad reading.
RIP, Charb
I was not particularly impressed by the text, which perhaps would have been edited more carefully if its author had lived longer, but I thought it made some good points. The most important one is to call into question the idea that "Islamophobia" is a bad thing, or indeed a well-defined concept in the first place. As Charb says, racism is indeed a very bad thing. People often denounce "Islamophobia" because they conflate it with racism.
But does this idea stand up to serious examination? Islam is not a race but a religion, a set of ideas and beliefs. It should be possible to express criticism, or indeed violent dislike, for an ideology, without being called racist. Charb argues that talk of "Islamophobia" confuses all these issues. He was very strongly against racism. But he was also very strongly against Islam. He disliked and held in contempt all versions of monotheism, which to him were no more than repressive and dangerous superstitions. It is surely unreasonable to expect an atheist who dislikes Catholicism to like Islam better; it is logical to expect him to like it even less.
Well, I'm inclined to agree with Charb on this. It should be possible to criticize ideologies on the grounds that they are harmful or dangerous, and not be accused of racism. It is generally regarded as acceptable to criticize Stalinism, on the grounds that it was directly responsible for killing millions of people and ruining the lives of tens of millions more. It is similarly regarded as acceptable to criticize Scientology, on similar but less extreme grounds. Believers routinely criticize atheism, which most atheists would immediately agree is their right. Why should Islam be an exception?
Charb comes across as a good-natured person who loves teasing, who can't believe that anyone would really want to kill him because he's constitutionally incapable of passing up an opportunity to make a good joke. And yet he can see that this is what's almost certainly going to happen. He's still not quite sure why. It's very sad reading.
RIP, Charb
April 10, 2016
I have a six-year-old nephew who’s a little master of inversing concepts or orders: When his teacher calls him “you’re doing this and that wrong and I have to fly away some of your stars” he comes and unsticks those starts from his board and gives them to his sister (who’s a year smaller) saying that he doesn’t need them at all. Or when his mother tells him that you should work harder to memorize the new poem he totally inverts all the verbs . Just a few days ago which it was the anniversary of Islamic revolution victory, TV showed the fundamentalists in demonstrations yelling “down with America” (or recently they say “down with Saudi Arabia”) he was running down the hall playing and shouting “down with Iran”!
I think what this little kid is doing is opposing himself to the unconditional, disguised fear in social education, social media or activities. He couldn’t understand the reason of this fear or these kinds of so called dangers (fear of wrong behavior, pressure of doing something, America) and so he couldn’t find the reason to content himself to act in a way to be accepted. Why do we have to have fear? And what is the purpose of fearing??
For Islamophobia also we can have the same questions: what is the purpose? And what is West going to attain by this word?
What Charb says in this letter (which was written two days before the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo in which Charb was killed) is that the word Islamophobia is misleading, because Islam like any other religion can be dangerous and the correct word is Muslimophobia which shows racism.
For a long time I have a misunderstanding for the word “Muslim”. We never use this word. As I live in a Middle East country which is dominated by Islamic government for more than 30 years, people are two kinds: religious and non-religious. And non-religious have the range from people who observe their religious instructions only and don’t care for Islamic politics, people who don’t observe and just believe in God to Atheists. According to a religious person (a fundamentalist) non-religious people are not Muslims. So apparently we have variety of Muslims. We never say I don’t vote for someone because he’s a Muslim (rather he’s a fundamentalist). People are first Persian, Turks, Arabs, Iranians and then in some especial occasions if they go to Mecca they call themselves Muslims – among other Muslims around the world.
Islamophobia is a western word. People are either Muslims or non-Muslims, that for west, a combination of different cultures which need more coexistence can be completely irrelevant. Not necessarily anybody from an Islamic country is a Muslim and not necessarily a Muslim is a terrorist.
What Charb says is in fact separating fundamentalists from other Muslims who don’t claim anything but to be treated and respected as citizens. He says ridiculing fundamentalists by showing their caricature only refers to them and they are not (and should not be) the representative of all the Muslims and if anybody doesn’t do anything because it will be tagged as Islamophobia and therefor racist, they think they are right. If an artist shows his rage for Islamic terrorism, it is not an act of Muslimophobia or it is not racist. The Islam referring to fundamentalists (and he also has the same rule for the fundamentalists of other religions too) is ridiculous and must be ridiculed (as it is being ridiculed by non-fundamentalist journalists from the Islamic countries [my word]) as well as those who consider all the Muslims fundamentalists and people who think in this way we show an act of Islamophobia or irresponsibility are limiting the freedom of speech.
I haven't seen many of Charb works, but by reading this book, I realized that what a pacifist person he was. I hope his letter will be read by both potential fundamentalists (not fundamentalists, because these's no hope to see they change their beliefs) and those who distribute racism against all the Muslims.
I think what this little kid is doing is opposing himself to the unconditional, disguised fear in social education, social media or activities. He couldn’t understand the reason of this fear or these kinds of so called dangers (fear of wrong behavior, pressure of doing something, America) and so he couldn’t find the reason to content himself to act in a way to be accepted. Why do we have to have fear? And what is the purpose of fearing??
For Islamophobia also we can have the same questions: what is the purpose? And what is West going to attain by this word?
What Charb says in this letter (which was written two days before the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo in which Charb was killed) is that the word Islamophobia is misleading, because Islam like any other religion can be dangerous and the correct word is Muslimophobia which shows racism.
For a long time I have a misunderstanding for the word “Muslim”. We never use this word. As I live in a Middle East country which is dominated by Islamic government for more than 30 years, people are two kinds: religious and non-religious. And non-religious have the range from people who observe their religious instructions only and don’t care for Islamic politics, people who don’t observe and just believe in God to Atheists. According to a religious person (a fundamentalist) non-religious people are not Muslims. So apparently we have variety of Muslims. We never say I don’t vote for someone because he’s a Muslim (rather he’s a fundamentalist). People are first Persian, Turks, Arabs, Iranians and then in some especial occasions if they go to Mecca they call themselves Muslims – among other Muslims around the world.
Islamophobia is a western word. People are either Muslims or non-Muslims, that for west, a combination of different cultures which need more coexistence can be completely irrelevant. Not necessarily anybody from an Islamic country is a Muslim and not necessarily a Muslim is a terrorist.
What Charb says is in fact separating fundamentalists from other Muslims who don’t claim anything but to be treated and respected as citizens. He says ridiculing fundamentalists by showing their caricature only refers to them and they are not (and should not be) the representative of all the Muslims and if anybody doesn’t do anything because it will be tagged as Islamophobia and therefor racist, they think they are right. If an artist shows his rage for Islamic terrorism, it is not an act of Muslimophobia or it is not racist. The Islam referring to fundamentalists (and he also has the same rule for the fundamentalists of other religions too) is ridiculous and must be ridiculed (as it is being ridiculed by non-fundamentalist journalists from the Islamic countries [my word]) as well as those who consider all the Muslims fundamentalists and people who think in this way we show an act of Islamophobia or irresponsibility are limiting the freedom of speech.
I haven't seen many of Charb works, but by reading this book, I realized that what a pacifist person he was. I hope his letter will be read by both potential fundamentalists (not fundamentalists, because these's no hope to see they change their beliefs) and those who distribute racism against all the Muslims.
January 6, 2016
There are a few words that irk me as much as the word "Islamophobia." One of them is the US right-wing usage of the word "libertarian," which they stole from leftists. Then there is this vapid, semantically bankrupt term "Islamophobia, " which conflates Islam with Muslims. A person can very well be afraid or critical of the doctrine of Islam without being prejudiced against Muslims. I know this has probably been repeated on this site a hundred times but it's worth repeating. You'd be surprised how many leftists site decry "Islamophobia."
Charb starts with this term and criticizes the media and the anti-Islamophobia police for using Islamophobia rather than "racism" to describe prejudice against Muslims. He says this:
He then goes on to say it's all well to be afraid of Islam—although it is "no doubt moronic, absurd, and plenty of other things...but not a crime." You can be afraid of Christianity or Judaism without causing a riot. And theists usually abhor one another's religion, anyway.
He also argues against blasphemy laws, saying that if a god does exist and will punish people in the afterlife for blasphemy, then it is cruel to punish one in this life because that person will be punished twice for the same crime. Why not just let god do his work?
He then criticizes the media for promoting the term Islamophobia out of laziness and for the buzz. The only Islam that the media portrays is the "scary Islam." This has happened after the media put on the center stage the character of Islamist terrorist. For this reason, the only Islam that has a megaphone is the scary Islam (I personally think that all Islam—except perhaps the Sufi tradition—is scary Islam, but that's for another day). This has perhaps turned more people against Muslims than cartoons by cartoonists. But no one cries Islamophobia at the media for this. But when a newspaper like Charlie Hebdo publishes a cartoon mocking "radical Islam," the media loses its mind. But isn't the media's action Islamophobic? They are saying that the radical Islamists represent billions of Muslims when that's not the case. What is especially tragic is the fact that Charlie Hebdo published cartoons mocking radical Islam and showing Muhammad depressed that his religion was hijacked by radicals. But either out of ignorance or deliberation, their cartoons were twisted to mean all Muslims are terrorists. Doesn't this say something about the prejudices of the accusers rather than the prejudices of Charlie Hebdo? Since when was it decided that Muslims can't understand humor? They can't take a little joke? Doesn't this smell a lot like the Islamophobia that the anti-Islamophobia police likes to persecute?
There's also this condescension by the elites and leftists who think that they understand the cartoons but Muslims are too stupid to understand humor:
There's a section dedicated to explaining the Muhammad cartoons. It seems that most, if not all, the Muhammad cartoons were actually making fun of radicals for hijacking the "real Islam," whatever that is. But that's not how it was presented by the media or the Muslim clerics. He gives an example of a cartoon showing Muhammad with a bomb on his head instead of a hat. Then says this:
I think he gets at the root of the problem with the term "Islamophobia" when he criticizes anti-racism activists for railing against Charlie Hebdo:
The fight against Islamophobia isn't a fight against racism or bigotry. Its activists conjured up this word as the secular substitute for blasphemy. By suppressing "Islamophobia," they want to suppress any criticism or dicussion of Islam, Allah, or Muhammad. That's not fighting racism or anti-Muslim bigotry. That's fighting for blasphemy laws. And it's often the case that anti-Islamophobia activists are the ones who are more prejudiced against Muslims than cartoonists who draw Muhammad. What conclusion can you draw if you accept their claims that a little cartoon might be the push moderate Muslims needed to go out and blow people up? Isn't that a prejudice we should fight against?
It's highly likely that this book won't be a seminal work on free expression like Areopagitica is. But it might become an important piece on the discussion of Islamophobia and what it means. But you can be pretty certain that it won't be read by people who should read it. They will be too busy calling Charb racist and Islamophobic rather than engage in an honest discussion.
Charb starts with this term and criticizes the media and the anti-Islamophobia police for using Islamophobia rather than "racism" to describe prejudice against Muslims. He says this:
Forgive me, but the fact that racists may also be Islamophobic is essentially incidental. They are racists first, and merely use Islam to target their intended victim: the foreigner or person of foreign extraction
He then goes on to say it's all well to be afraid of Islam—although it is "no doubt moronic, absurd, and plenty of other things...but not a crime." You can be afraid of Christianity or Judaism without causing a riot. And theists usually abhor one another's religion, anyway.
There's nothing surprising about a Catholic being Islamophobic or a Muslim being Cathophobic—that is precisely what their religious shepherds ask them to be. Disapproval of the other guy's religion is the daily bread of clerics of all creeds, and nobody seems to be bothered by it. Priests, imams, and rabbis have the right to be Islamophobic, Judeophobic, or Cathophobic without reprimand.
He also argues against blasphemy laws, saying that if a god does exist and will punish people in the afterlife for blasphemy, then it is cruel to punish one in this life because that person will be punished twice for the same crime. Why not just let god do his work?
He then criticizes the media for promoting the term Islamophobia out of laziness and for the buzz. The only Islam that the media portrays is the "scary Islam." This has happened after the media put on the center stage the character of Islamist terrorist. For this reason, the only Islam that has a megaphone is the scary Islam (I personally think that all Islam—except perhaps the Sufi tradition—is scary Islam, but that's for another day). This has perhaps turned more people against Muslims than cartoons by cartoonists. But no one cries Islamophobia at the media for this. But when a newspaper like Charlie Hebdo publishes a cartoon mocking "radical Islam," the media loses its mind. But isn't the media's action Islamophobic? They are saying that the radical Islamists represent billions of Muslims when that's not the case. What is especially tragic is the fact that Charlie Hebdo published cartoons mocking radical Islam and showing Muhammad depressed that his religion was hijacked by radicals. But either out of ignorance or deliberation, their cartoons were twisted to mean all Muslims are terrorists. Doesn't this say something about the prejudices of the accusers rather than the prejudices of Charlie Hebdo? Since when was it decided that Muslims can't understand humor? They can't take a little joke? Doesn't this smell a lot like the Islamophobia that the anti-Islamophobia police likes to persecute?
There's also this condescension by the elites and leftists who think that they understand the cartoons but Muslims are too stupid to understand humor:
Shouldn’t we treat the second-largest religion of the world, the purported second religion in France, exactly as we treat the first? It’s time to put an end to the revolting paternalism of the white, middle-class, “leftist” intellectual trying to coexist with these “poor, subliterate wretches.” “I’m educated; obviously I get that Charlie Hebdo is a humor newspaper because, first, I’m very intelligent, and second, it’s my culture. But you— well, you haven’t quite mastered nuanced thinking yet, so I’ll express my solidarity by fulminating against Islamophobic cartoons and pretending not to understand them. I will lower myself to your level to show you that I like you. And if I need to convert to Islam to get even closer to you, I’ll do it!” These pathetic demagogues just have a ravenous need for recognition and a formidable domination fantasy to fulfill.
There's a section dedicated to explaining the Muhammad cartoons. It seems that most, if not all, the Muhammad cartoons were actually making fun of radicals for hijacking the "real Islam," whatever that is. But that's not how it was presented by the media or the Muslim clerics. He gives an example of a cartoon showing Muhammad with a bomb on his head instead of a hat. Then says this:
To give the prophet of the faithful a bomb for a hat was to suggest that all his followers were terrorists. Another interpretation was possible, but it did not interest the media as much since it was not inflammatory, and therefore didn’t sell copy. Showing Muhammad in a bomb-hat could have been a way of condemning the exploitation of religion by terrorists. The cartoon was saying, “This is what terrorists have done to Islam. This is how the terrorists who claim to follow the prophet see him.”
I think he gets at the root of the problem with the term "Islamophobia" when he criticizes anti-racism activists for railing against Charlie Hebdo:
What’s in it for people who seem to be sincere in their fight against racism to hold Charlie Hebdo up as a racist publication? A newspaper that champions voting rights for immigrants, legal status for the undocumented, anti-racist legislation… Shouldn’t we be on the same side? Yes. But that would be forgetting that it’s not the struggle against racism these folks are really interested in; it’s the promotion of Islam.
The fight against Islamophobia isn't a fight against racism or bigotry. Its activists conjured up this word as the secular substitute for blasphemy. By suppressing "Islamophobia," they want to suppress any criticism or dicussion of Islam, Allah, or Muhammad. That's not fighting racism or anti-Muslim bigotry. That's fighting for blasphemy laws. And it's often the case that anti-Islamophobia activists are the ones who are more prejudiced against Muslims than cartoonists who draw Muhammad. What conclusion can you draw if you accept their claims that a little cartoon might be the push moderate Muslims needed to go out and blow people up? Isn't that a prejudice we should fight against?
It's highly likely that this book won't be a seminal work on free expression like Areopagitica is. But it might become an important piece on the discussion of Islamophobia and what it means. But you can be pretty certain that it won't be read by people who should read it. They will be too busy calling Charb racist and Islamophobic rather than engage in an honest discussion.
November 21, 2017
Free speech is the subject of this book and my review.
The author is Charb (Stéphane Charbonnier), one of the Charlie Hebdo satirists who died in the January 2015 terrorist attacks on the magazine. This little monograph-sized book of his thoughts on freedom of expression was published posthumously. I really bought it for the introduction by Adam Gopnik, though. Gopnik is an author and New Yorker writer who can often articulate difficult positions in defense of liberal democracy to my satisfaction. I read the book in hopes of his being able to do that for free speech, and now I'm not happy. I thought Adam Gopnik would defend free speech for me and make everything clear. But he didn't, so now I have to put on my thinking cap.
In the book, Gopnik explains the lay of the land regarding satire in France, and that part is useful. But as to what's permissible and what's racist in satirical drawings he, and Charb, for that matter, claimed that racism is anti-people, while satire is anti-ideology. They assume a clear demarcation between the two and claim that racism is the problem, not the anti-ideology part. They declare open season on ideologies of any kind.
Charb also wrote against certain terminology, "Islamophobia" for instance, which isn't accurate or sensible according to him. As far as I'm concerned Islamophobia is like "homophobia," which originally meant homosexual panic. People can and do have moral panic and hysterically violent reactions in the face of another ideology, or, more likely, what they've been taught that ideology represents. But never mind--once we have a word we usually lack the power to get rid of it on the basis of its origin or how it's being used. We have to deal with it.
Another word that takes heat from Charb is "blasphemy," not one that's necessarily synonymous with "anti-ideology," but has been used against Charlie Hebdo for some of its cartoons, and for that reason a word to be disarmed in Charb's view. And Gopnik defends those initiatives by Charb to dismantle and disarm certain words. As far as I'm concerned, Gopnik's writing lacks its usual precision. He may have felt that's what had to be done in writing an introduction to the work of the now-dead satirist: defend him and don't speak ill of the dead.
So I went back and read what he'd written before.
Back in 2015, the PEN International awards dinner split the writing community with its Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the murdered Charlie Hebdo satirists, bringing the differences of opinion over free speech front and center. Six writers who were to be table leaders at the gala said Charlie Hebdo was a racist publication featuring anti-Islam material and walked out. They said that Muslims in Europe were a religious minority who were being denigrated by the paper. 200 other writers followed them--still a minority of the membership. (Some Goodreads friends shared the opinion of the abstainers).
Adam Gopnik was one of the writers who stayed. Here is the link to a piece he wrote at the time which itself contains the link to something else he wrote. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...
He no longer had to defend Charb's criticisms of particular terminology, but I'd say he did continue to make the distinction between being racist and being against an ideology the basis of his argument.
I've been noticing something about myself in this case and another recent case: Things look better when I read them in The New Yorker. I wish I could say it ain't so, but that's how I account for missing what he was saying when he was saying it there. ....On the other hand, I'm not comparing identical texts. The expectation of a more discerning New Yorker audience may draw forth something different from writers.
So I read what Adam Gopnik had written in those two articles. I also read this May 2015 article from Time: http://time.com/3848046/pen-gala-hono... , and this one from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/bo... .
You may be interested in the identities of those who walked out and those that remained. Neil Gaiman was one who stayed. He took the place as table headliner of one of those who left. There was a pithy comment by Salman Rushdie, too.
I am one of those who is in favor of the award, even though I didn't think Charb and Adam Gopnik made their case for it. The walkers-out are wrong. They backed the wrong side. They are confused. The dead people are not the powerful ones. The issue has to do not with anti-ideology vs. anti-people, but with relative power.
It's very confusing to think about these things even if we were all in the same society and if France didn't have its particular history of republicanism. By the way, one of the articles I read or reread in the last few days said voices blaming Charlie Hebdo had been raised in France, too.
Sticking to America and in particular my home state, the Republican Party has been trying to pass what's called a "religious liberty" bill. I want to look at what means since "religious liberty" like free speech is confusional. Certain conservative groups fear their religious liberty is being compromised by being made to act against their religious values, for example, if private Christian-owned companies have to provide insurance coverage for birth control, or if the company is a bakery confronting an order for a wedding cake for a gay marriages. This particular bill had an anti-gay slant. The Republican governor heroically vetoed it in 2016 and saved the state from being boycotted by sports teams, conventions, and industry. Meanwhile parties hoping to resurrect the bill accuse him of having sold out for thirty pieces of silver.
I'm wanting to highlight the confusing nature of this language. Shouldn't Christians be free to practice their values? The answer is that their establishing those values would be at the expense of others. What they are wanting, then, is to turn back the clock to a time in which their values were privileged.
Similarly, those who opposed the Charlie Hebdo award wanted to disallow cartoons that they deemed anti-Muslim. (That's despite the fact it turns out only a small percent of the magazine covers, at least, dealt with Muslim issues.)
The problem with the position that Charlie Hebdo is anti-Muslim (or racist or constitutes picking on the underdog) is the general preaching (or indoctrination or elite opinion) to the effect that anti-Muslim imagery or indeed anti-Muslim speech in general is not to be allowed--an honor system of sorts. In that climate there will then be those who take it upon themselves move against the apparent offenders.
It's as we say of Trump: that he has unleashed hate.
It's as we say of the church re the teaching of contempt against Jews.
Or as has been the case until recently of the toleration of contempt for gays.
When such ideology is supported by powerful entities, there will be those who pick up on it, whether we call them thugs, fanatics, terrorists, violent activists, white supremacists, or sickos. It won't usually be the stable members of society who take violent action, but neither can their actions be separated from the enabling social groups, no matter how they would wish to dissociate themselves.
Hate isn't caused by the victims, imperfect though they may be. What happens is that the victims are portrayed as deserving targets by those who hate them. Just as hateful ideology supports and engenders bad behavior, bad behavior requires bad ideology in its own justification. The powerful judge and condemn the targets using a standard of perfection they don't apply to themselves.
We need the satire, and the journalist and novelists and comedians and playwrights, and the social media and all of us--the relatively powerless--to stand up to the powers-that-be.
November 21, 2017: Opinion column by Mary Sanchez (Kansas City Star)
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn...
The author is Charb (Stéphane Charbonnier), one of the Charlie Hebdo satirists who died in the January 2015 terrorist attacks on the magazine. This little monograph-sized book of his thoughts on freedom of expression was published posthumously. I really bought it for the introduction by Adam Gopnik, though. Gopnik is an author and New Yorker writer who can often articulate difficult positions in defense of liberal democracy to my satisfaction. I read the book in hopes of his being able to do that for free speech, and now I'm not happy. I thought Adam Gopnik would defend free speech for me and make everything clear. But he didn't, so now I have to put on my thinking cap.
In the book, Gopnik explains the lay of the land regarding satire in France, and that part is useful. But as to what's permissible and what's racist in satirical drawings he, and Charb, for that matter, claimed that racism is anti-people, while satire is anti-ideology. They assume a clear demarcation between the two and claim that racism is the problem, not the anti-ideology part. They declare open season on ideologies of any kind.
Charb also wrote against certain terminology, "Islamophobia" for instance, which isn't accurate or sensible according to him. As far as I'm concerned Islamophobia is like "homophobia," which originally meant homosexual panic. People can and do have moral panic and hysterically violent reactions in the face of another ideology, or, more likely, what they've been taught that ideology represents. But never mind--once we have a word we usually lack the power to get rid of it on the basis of its origin or how it's being used. We have to deal with it.
Another word that takes heat from Charb is "blasphemy," not one that's necessarily synonymous with "anti-ideology," but has been used against Charlie Hebdo for some of its cartoons, and for that reason a word to be disarmed in Charb's view. And Gopnik defends those initiatives by Charb to dismantle and disarm certain words. As far as I'm concerned, Gopnik's writing lacks its usual precision. He may have felt that's what had to be done in writing an introduction to the work of the now-dead satirist: defend him and don't speak ill of the dead.
So I went back and read what he'd written before.
Back in 2015, the PEN International awards dinner split the writing community with its Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the murdered Charlie Hebdo satirists, bringing the differences of opinion over free speech front and center. Six writers who were to be table leaders at the gala said Charlie Hebdo was a racist publication featuring anti-Islam material and walked out. They said that Muslims in Europe were a religious minority who were being denigrated by the paper. 200 other writers followed them--still a minority of the membership. (Some Goodreads friends shared the opinion of the abstainers).
Adam Gopnik was one of the writers who stayed. Here is the link to a piece he wrote at the time which itself contains the link to something else he wrote. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...
He no longer had to defend Charb's criticisms of particular terminology, but I'd say he did continue to make the distinction between being racist and being against an ideology the basis of his argument.
I've been noticing something about myself in this case and another recent case: Things look better when I read them in The New Yorker. I wish I could say it ain't so, but that's how I account for missing what he was saying when he was saying it there. ....On the other hand, I'm not comparing identical texts. The expectation of a more discerning New Yorker audience may draw forth something different from writers.
So I read what Adam Gopnik had written in those two articles. I also read this May 2015 article from Time: http://time.com/3848046/pen-gala-hono... , and this one from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/bo... .
You may be interested in the identities of those who walked out and those that remained. Neil Gaiman was one who stayed. He took the place as table headliner of one of those who left. There was a pithy comment by Salman Rushdie, too.
I am one of those who is in favor of the award, even though I didn't think Charb and Adam Gopnik made their case for it. The walkers-out are wrong. They backed the wrong side. They are confused. The dead people are not the powerful ones. The issue has to do not with anti-ideology vs. anti-people, but with relative power.
It's very confusing to think about these things even if we were all in the same society and if France didn't have its particular history of republicanism. By the way, one of the articles I read or reread in the last few days said voices blaming Charlie Hebdo had been raised in France, too.
Sticking to America and in particular my home state, the Republican Party has been trying to pass what's called a "religious liberty" bill. I want to look at what means since "religious liberty" like free speech is confusional. Certain conservative groups fear their religious liberty is being compromised by being made to act against their religious values, for example, if private Christian-owned companies have to provide insurance coverage for birth control, or if the company is a bakery confronting an order for a wedding cake for a gay marriages. This particular bill had an anti-gay slant. The Republican governor heroically vetoed it in 2016 and saved the state from being boycotted by sports teams, conventions, and industry. Meanwhile parties hoping to resurrect the bill accuse him of having sold out for thirty pieces of silver.
I'm wanting to highlight the confusing nature of this language. Shouldn't Christians be free to practice their values? The answer is that their establishing those values would be at the expense of others. What they are wanting, then, is to turn back the clock to a time in which their values were privileged.
Similarly, those who opposed the Charlie Hebdo award wanted to disallow cartoons that they deemed anti-Muslim. (That's despite the fact it turns out only a small percent of the magazine covers, at least, dealt with Muslim issues.)
The problem with the position that Charlie Hebdo is anti-Muslim (or racist or constitutes picking on the underdog) is the general preaching (or indoctrination or elite opinion) to the effect that anti-Muslim imagery or indeed anti-Muslim speech in general is not to be allowed--an honor system of sorts. In that climate there will then be those who take it upon themselves move against the apparent offenders.
It's as we say of Trump: that he has unleashed hate.
It's as we say of the church re the teaching of contempt against Jews.
Or as has been the case until recently of the toleration of contempt for gays.
When such ideology is supported by powerful entities, there will be those who pick up on it, whether we call them thugs, fanatics, terrorists, violent activists, white supremacists, or sickos. It won't usually be the stable members of society who take violent action, but neither can their actions be separated from the enabling social groups, no matter how they would wish to dissociate themselves.
Hate isn't caused by the victims, imperfect though they may be. What happens is that the victims are portrayed as deserving targets by those who hate them. Just as hateful ideology supports and engenders bad behavior, bad behavior requires bad ideology in its own justification. The powerful judge and condemn the targets using a standard of perfection they don't apply to themselves.
We need the satire, and the journalist and novelists and comedians and playwrights, and the social media and all of us--the relatively powerless--to stand up to the powers-that-be.
November 21, 2017: Opinion column by Mary Sanchez (Kansas City Star)
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn...
May 28, 2015
"Ceux qui accusent les dessinateurs de Charlie Hebdo d'islamophobie chaque fois qu'un personnage porte une barbe ne sont pas seulement malhonnête ou de mauvaise foi gratuitement, ils montrent leur soutien à l'islam dit radical. Lorsqu'on dessine un vieux qui commet un acte pédophile, on ne jette pas l'opprobre sur tous les vieux, on ne laisse pas entendre que tous les vieux sont pédophiles (ni l'inverse). "
"Il serait temps d'en finir avec ce paternalisme dégueulasse de l'intellectuel blanc «de gauche» qui cherche à exister auprès de «pauvres malheureux sous-éduqués». Moi, qui suis éduqué, évidemment, je comprends que Charlie Hebdo fait de l'humour, puisque, d'une part, je suis très intelligent et, d'autre part, c'est ma culture. Mais, par respect pour vous, qui n'avez pas encore découvert le second degré, je fustigerai solidairement ces dessins islamophobes que je ferai semblant de ne pas comprendre. Je me mettrai à votre niveau pour vous montrer que je vous aime… Et s'il faut que je me convertisse à l'Islam pour être encore plus proche de vous, je le ferai! Ces démagogues ridicules ont juste un énorme besoin de reconnaissance et un formidable fantasme de domination à assouvir. "
February 23, 2016
A very short yet powerful book about the freedom of speech. Written by Charb who was called by name and executed in the Charlie Hebdo attack in 2015 for his criticism of religion and politics. With his disscussion on the problems of Islamophobia, racism, discrimination, and blasphemy this is a must read book!
February 15, 2024
We all need to take a step back from the abyss and try to understand each other. While I do not agree with everything said in this book I do think that we need to hear each other out...it is the only way to survive in a world where violence is too often the first (and only) solution considered. If we give up our right to free expression then we are surely on the road to tyranny.
May 3, 2015
I feel like I need to write this review in English to give a bit of insight into the mind of the man who was the editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo, born Stéphane Charbonnier but commonly known as Charb. He was the principal target of the newspaper and had been living under police protection for eight years before indeed loosing his life at the hands of those he refused to yield to.
This letter was completed two days before the attack on Charlie Hebdo's staff. Addressing the "frauds of islamophobia playing the game of racists", Charb explains how the term of "islamophobia" is misleading and contributes to sacralizing religion in a society which should hold on to its principle of secularism, even if this principle is not flawlessly applied. He demonstrates how the popularization of the term by the media contributes to allow a return of the concept of blasphemy in a nation where citizens should be free of the fear to be charged for a mystical concept they do not believe in.
Because the term of "islamophobia" denounces the hatred of Islam instead of denouncing the hatred of Muslims. Charb reminds that people's hatred is not primarily directed at religion but at an ethnic minority. The fear of Islam must be understood only in relation to the irrational fear of Arab invasion that has been promoted over and over again by the extreme right in the last few years. It remains pure, good old racism.
Instead of defining Arab/Muslims as citizens and people, the term "islamophobia" identifies them first and foremost by their religious beliefs. It sacralizes concepts, symbols and the pages of a book by making it the very essence of what Muslims are. It places the concept before the person. It makes them believers before they are people, which is dangerously essentialist and forgets that the oppression of racial minorities exactly revolves primarily around a racial concept. But people are people. After than, only, can they be religious, or Communists, or environmentalists, etc. It is very dangerous to assume otherwise.
I am a feminist, but I am a woman, and I am a person before I am a woman. I don't want to defend women because they are women. I want to defend women because they are people who are oppressed because they happen to be women.
The reality is, you can strip Arabs of their religion, at the end of the day, a white person will always be favoured over an Arab. Because they are oppressed for being Arabs before they are oppressed for being Muslims.
Charb also demonstrates how the population has been manipulated into believing that the newspaper was a racist, Conservative piece of garbage. Cartoons have been truncated, taken out of context to be circulated around the world and seen by people who had never heard of Charlie Hebdo and who often had only a poor understanding of French politics and culture; they have also been used by the most integrist branch of the left, which, out of fear of being labeled racist, proceeded to demonize a newspaper which in reality advocates for immigrants' right of vote, denounces religious extremism from all sides, criticizes racist immigration policies, illegal internet surveillance, and other actual Conservative policies. It is a newspaper that has been sued dozens of times by the nationalist party which it never ceases to oppose. It is, in fact, despite its flaws, probably the most people-driven and least-racist newspaper in the country.
It is the media that killed Charb, and all the others. It is the sacralization of symbols and ideas over people. It is a left that only seeks to exist in the eyes of oppressed communities. It is people who condemn without giving the benefit of the doubt.
This letter was completed two days before the attack on Charlie Hebdo's staff. Addressing the "frauds of islamophobia playing the game of racists", Charb explains how the term of "islamophobia" is misleading and contributes to sacralizing religion in a society which should hold on to its principle of secularism, even if this principle is not flawlessly applied. He demonstrates how the popularization of the term by the media contributes to allow a return of the concept of blasphemy in a nation where citizens should be free of the fear to be charged for a mystical concept they do not believe in.
Because the term of "islamophobia" denounces the hatred of Islam instead of denouncing the hatred of Muslims. Charb reminds that people's hatred is not primarily directed at religion but at an ethnic minority. The fear of Islam must be understood only in relation to the irrational fear of Arab invasion that has been promoted over and over again by the extreme right in the last few years. It remains pure, good old racism.
Instead of defining Arab/Muslims as citizens and people, the term "islamophobia" identifies them first and foremost by their religious beliefs. It sacralizes concepts, symbols and the pages of a book by making it the very essence of what Muslims are. It places the concept before the person. It makes them believers before they are people, which is dangerously essentialist and forgets that the oppression of racial minorities exactly revolves primarily around a racial concept. But people are people. After than, only, can they be religious, or Communists, or environmentalists, etc. It is very dangerous to assume otherwise.
I am a feminist, but I am a woman, and I am a person before I am a woman. I don't want to defend women because they are women. I want to defend women because they are people who are oppressed because they happen to be women.
The reality is, you can strip Arabs of their religion, at the end of the day, a white person will always be favoured over an Arab. Because they are oppressed for being Arabs before they are oppressed for being Muslims.
Charb also demonstrates how the population has been manipulated into believing that the newspaper was a racist, Conservative piece of garbage. Cartoons have been truncated, taken out of context to be circulated around the world and seen by people who had never heard of Charlie Hebdo and who often had only a poor understanding of French politics and culture; they have also been used by the most integrist branch of the left, which, out of fear of being labeled racist, proceeded to demonize a newspaper which in reality advocates for immigrants' right of vote, denounces religious extremism from all sides, criticizes racist immigration policies, illegal internet surveillance, and other actual Conservative policies. It is a newspaper that has been sued dozens of times by the nationalist party which it never ceases to oppose. It is, in fact, despite its flaws, probably the most people-driven and least-racist newspaper in the country.
It is the media that killed Charb, and all the others. It is the sacralization of symbols and ideas over people. It is a left that only seeks to exist in the eyes of oppressed communities. It is people who condemn without giving the benefit of the doubt.
January 23, 2016
completed two days before he was murdered in the january 2015 charlie hebdo attack in paris, open letter: on blasphemy, islamophobia, and the true enemies of free expression is an essay commentary on free speech, racism, and intellectual hypocrisy from french cartoonist, journalist, and editor-in-chief charb (stéphane charbonnier). emphatic, impassioned, and resolute, open letter sharply criticizes those that capitalize (and profit) upon the idea of islamophobia (a word that charb deftly deconstructs in all of its nonsensicalness), as well as those that purport to decry racism while duplicitously exploiting its very real and pernicious effects.
open letter, written to those least likely to read (let alone heed) its words, addresses blasphemy, charges of provocation and intolerance, as well as the reactionary response garnered by satirical cartoons and the like. charb's ardent defense of free speech and free expression (in all its myriad forms) is a clarion call for its vigorous and active protection. with wit, erudition, and ample, tenable logic, charb's open letter is a brief, but important condemnation of the ongoing (and ever-increasing) threat to free, open, and unfettered expression.
*with a wonderful, indispensable foreword by adam gopnik.
open letter, written to those least likely to read (let alone heed) its words, addresses blasphemy, charges of provocation and intolerance, as well as the reactionary response garnered by satirical cartoons and the like. charb's ardent defense of free speech and free expression (in all its myriad forms) is a clarion call for its vigorous and active protection. with wit, erudition, and ample, tenable logic, charb's open letter is a brief, but important condemnation of the ongoing (and ever-increasing) threat to free, open, and unfettered expression.
nowadays, when a journalist asks a muslim to comment on "the rise of islamophobia," what he's really asking for is commentary on something the media themselves have created. in other words, the reporter helps amplify the problem and then claims to be surprised that the problem exists and endures. the muslim leader whom the prime-time anchor has called on to express his opinion of this notorious "rise of islamophobia" should spit in his eye. he is face-to-face with the guy whose very job is to peddle fear of islam.
*with a wonderful, indispensable foreword by adam gopnik.
January 7, 2016
A must-read for anyone interested in the debate between free speech and blasphemy, and how it has been playing out with Islam in France in particular. The author, sadly killed by idiots 2 days after completing this book, makes a compelling case for free speech and against blasphemy laws, often with keen wit and a sense of the absurd, in fact sometimes reminding me of the late great George Carlin. He explains how many of the cartoons have been intentionally misrepresented to whip up reaction. He places blame for the outrage not on the Muslim community at large but a "few loudmouths", and in fact mostly on the media for manufacturing a crisis and giving said loudmouths a stage.
January 8, 2016
A searing critique of the manufacturers of Islamophobia and anti-Islamophobia. A much more sophisticated and nuanced argument than I expected from a man who sadly paid with his life. A must read in this odd & ironic political climate in the West.
April 30, 2015
Livre courageux qui mérite d'être lu largement, car les extraits qui en ont été publiés dans la presse n'en donnent qu'une image très partielle. Si l'auteur dénonce à juste titre l'instrumentalisation du mot "islamophobie" — ce sur quoi la plupart des critiques se sont concentrés — il est aussi extrêmement sévère envers l'image de l'islam renvoyée par les médias, qu'il décrit comme une "caricature" qui a pour effet bien prévisible d'attiser la haine de l'Islam. Sur ce point, son discours est étonnamment proche des critiques de gauche de Charlie Hebdo.
Ceci ne surprendra pas ses lecteurs fidèles, mais le dernier livre de Charb le confirme comme un des rares anti-racistes authentiques, qui n'avait rien d'islamophobe mais ne se laissait pas non plus intimider par les accusations d'islamophobie, et attaquait avec autant de véhémence tout ce qui était sacralisé, des livres saints aux drapeaux et aux hymnes nationaux. Il nous manque particulièrement cruellement pour commenter, et ridiculiser, les travers de la réaction de la presse et du gouvernement aux attentats de janvier.
Ceci ne surprendra pas ses lecteurs fidèles, mais le dernier livre de Charb le confirme comme un des rares anti-racistes authentiques, qui n'avait rien d'islamophobe mais ne se laissait pas non plus intimider par les accusations d'islamophobie, et attaquait avec autant de véhémence tout ce qui était sacralisé, des livres saints aux drapeaux et aux hymnes nationaux. Il nous manque particulièrement cruellement pour commenter, et ridiculiser, les travers de la réaction de la presse et du gouvernement aux attentats de janvier.
May 9, 2018
Short, yet excellent book by Charb, Stéphane Charbonnier, artist at Charlie Hebdo who was murder by Muslim terrorists on the January 7, 2015 in Paris. The book covers multiple arguments and examples as to why criticism of Islam is in fact not racism, nor anti-liberal. Though this may be a bit redundant for those of us who know this to be blatantly and painfully obvious, and especially redundant if you know this and live in France. Nevertheless given its simplicity and brevity, it would make for a great gift for anyone around you who rambles on and on about "islamophobia."
January 18, 2016
In defense of freedom of expression.
The late editor of the French satirical magazine "Charlie Hebdo" was murdered a year ago by terrorists who were offended by the magazine's constant satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Before his murdered Charb wrote this short and brilliant manifesto defending the most important right a person has, and that is free speech. The enemies of free expression aren't Muslims but the minority of extremists who appoint themselves (without anyone's consent) to speak for an entire group of people. As Charb beautifully wrote in this manifesto, these extremists do not speak for anyone but themselves and societies that value freedom of expression shouldn't cower in the face of these extremists. It is also important to distinguish the lampooning of religion with expressions of hatred towards the practitioners of religion. The job of liberals is not only to defend freedom of expression, but minorities from discrimination. Lampooning Islam, or any other religion, is not the same as expressing hatred. Charb is gone, but he left behind a gift in this manifesto that expresses the best traditions of leftist freethinkers. Long live Charb!
The late editor of the French satirical magazine "Charlie Hebdo" was murdered a year ago by terrorists who were offended by the magazine's constant satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Before his murdered Charb wrote this short and brilliant manifesto defending the most important right a person has, and that is free speech. The enemies of free expression aren't Muslims but the minority of extremists who appoint themselves (without anyone's consent) to speak for an entire group of people. As Charb beautifully wrote in this manifesto, these extremists do not speak for anyone but themselves and societies that value freedom of expression shouldn't cower in the face of these extremists. It is also important to distinguish the lampooning of religion with expressions of hatred towards the practitioners of religion. The job of liberals is not only to defend freedom of expression, but minorities from discrimination. Lampooning Islam, or any other religion, is not the same as expressing hatred. Charb is gone, but he left behind a gift in this manifesto that expresses the best traditions of leftist freethinkers. Long live Charb!
September 13, 2016
"به عقاید دیگران احترام بگذارید"
به نظر من جمله بالا یک سوتفاهم ناشی از استدلال اشتباه، ترجمه بد و یا یک سواستفاده عمدی بوده که توسط فرهنگ مسلط به ما آموزش داده شده.
(حداقل به شکلی که امروز میبینم از این گزاره استفاده میشه)
نامه سرگشاده "شارب"، سردبیر مجله شارلی ابدو که دو روز قبل از قتلش به این صورت فعلی به اتمامش رسونده بود در دفاع از سیاست نشریه خودش و حداقل به عقیده خودش در دفاع از آزادی بیان.
به هرکسی که در مورد محدودیت های حق آزادی بیان فکر میکرده پیشنهاد میکنم این کار کوتاه رو بخونه و اگر کسی کتابی با موضوع مشابه سراغ داره ممنون میشم معرفی کنید به من.
به نظر من جمله بالا یک سوتفاهم ناشی از استدلال اشتباه، ترجمه بد و یا یک سواستفاده عمدی بوده که توسط فرهنگ مسلط به ما آموزش داده شده.
(حداقل به شکلی که امروز میبینم از این گزاره استفاده میشه)
نامه سرگشاده "شارب"، سردبیر مجله شارلی ابدو که دو روز قبل از قتلش به این صورت فعلی به اتمامش رسونده بود در دفاع از سیاست نشریه خودش و حداقل به عقیده خودش در دفاع از آزادی بیان.
به هرکسی که در مورد محدودیت های حق آزادی بیان فکر میکرده پیشنهاد میکنم این کار کوتاه رو بخونه و اگر کسی کتابی با موضوع مشابه سراغ داره ممنون میشم معرفی کنید به من.
September 16, 2018
This letter is on all levels incredible. The writing is straight-forward and makes Charb's thoughts loud and clear. His recollection of the history of the magazin but also the additions of political statistics and anecdotes in France underline his arguments. I was shocked and baffled by his way of looking at the issue - positively, he makes claims that not a lot of people would dare to make. I can strongly recommend this quick read.
February 2, 2016
A brief but striking reminder of the true stakes in the battle over free expression. Just days after penning this missive, Charlie Hebdo editor-in-chief Stéphane Charbonnier was gunned down for the his refusal to follow Islamic blasphemy law as interpreted by a handful of attackers. While the letter delves into some aspects of French politics with which I'm unfamiliar, the overall thrust of Charb's argument is undeniable: All ideas are fair game. And criticizing them does not automatically amount to an attack those holding them, even if the offended party considers those propositions sacred. All of us hold beliefs that some other group finds ridiculous - and if you think their scrutiny, however blunt, warrants a violence response, then you're no longer sitting at the adult table.
What's most poignant about this short volume is how painstakingly Charb stresses that his satire applies to concepts, and when it refers to specific people, it's only insofar as they are advertising those concepts. His defense of everyday peaceful Muslims comes through as clearly as anything else, and yet, he will continue to be tarred as a racist or Islamophobe by those who conflate religious criticism with bigotry. Here's hoping people read a little deeper.
What's most poignant about this short volume is how painstakingly Charb stresses that his satire applies to concepts, and when it refers to specific people, it's only insofar as they are advertising those concepts. His defense of everyday peaceful Muslims comes through as clearly as anything else, and yet, he will continue to be tarred as a racist or Islamophobe by those who conflate religious criticism with bigotry. Here's hoping people read a little deeper.
August 14, 2020
* Based on a reading of an ARC
Does God need defending from mere mortals when according to the religious texts we will get our judgement upon our death?
What is too sacred?
Is something that is sacred have to be automatically sacred to all?
These and other things are address in this tiny book, the last work by Charb, the late editor of Charlie Hebdo.
When I heard that this book will be release in 2016, I knew I had to read it and I'm glad I did because it filled my expectation. Whether I agree with Charb or not, there are plenty of topics to chew on over drinks and/ or food or in a book club if you dare.
This will be controversial, but it's frank and honest and it should not be ignored. When a book stirs my conscience, it's a good thing.
* Do not go into this with high expectation or grand answers. Rather you will leave with questions because I felt that the author was in same state, questioning why his publication came under attack and many more.
Does God need defending from mere mortals when according to the religious texts we will get our judgement upon our death?
What is too sacred?
Is something that is sacred have to be automatically sacred to all?
These and other things are address in this tiny book, the last work by Charb, the late editor of Charlie Hebdo.
When I heard that this book will be release in 2016, I knew I had to read it and I'm glad I did because it filled my expectation. Whether I agree with Charb or not, there are plenty of topics to chew on over drinks and/ or food or in a book club if you dare.
This will be controversial, but it's frank and honest and it should not be ignored. When a book stirs my conscience, it's a good thing.
* Do not go into this with high expectation or grand answers. Rather you will leave with questions because I felt that the author was in same state, questioning why his publication came under attack and many more.
January 26, 2016
Charb pulls no punches in his scathingly witty condemnation of religious fundamentalism, the media, politicians, racists, and the far-right. This manifesto on the necessity of free speech, liberal values, and the freedom of expression, driven home by his assassination just days after its completion, is truly a thing of beauty.
July 22, 2022
Stéphane Jean-Abel Michel Charbonnier AKA Charb was a French satirical caricaturist and journalist. He was one of the twelve deaths (there were also eleven casualties) when gun toting Islamists attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo; a small French periodical only available from newsstands. The irreverent read took regular swipes at religion, mocking The Pope, rabbis and fatally it featured cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
A valuable historical document, not least in timing. Charb finished writing this essay just two days before his assassination and is mainly focused on issues of free speech and defending the republishing of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. He references a previous Molotov cocktail arson attack on Charlie's HQ. He criticises those who blame the cartoonist victims involved and defends their rights even in the wake of global riots and threats to French embassies in Islamic nations.
“A believer can blaspheme only to the extent that the idea of blasphemy holds any meaning for him. A nonbeliever, no matter how hard he tries, cannot blaspheme. God is sacred only to those who believe in him. If you wish to insult or offend God, you have to be sure that he exists. The strategy used by minority group activists masquerading as anti-racists is to pass off blasphemy as Islamophobia and Islamophobia as racism.”
Charb rails against the creation of the term "islamophobia" and its weaponisation as a deflective force against criticisms of Islam and/or the behaviour of its adherents. The “liberals” who push these ideas and infantilise their violent charges come in for particular criticism. An interesting question might be that if the criticisms were in fact racially motivated rather than religiously why are there no enduring terms for "hinduphobia" and "sikhophobia" in the western world?
He goes to great lengths to assert his own left-wing socialist standing as well as that of his publication as if this could ever protect him from the blasphemy charges. Al Qaeda's magazine had featured Charb as one of seven targets for its followers to kill and he was extremely naïve to think he could appeal to the better nature of the rabid, fundamentalist murderers in his midst.
“What twisted theory makes humor less compatible with Islam than with any other religion? Asserting that Islam is not compatible with humor is as absurd as claiming that Islam is not compatible with democracy or secular governance.”
After the bloody warning of the 7th of January 2015, the slogan of "Je suis Charlie" was about as far as anyone would dare push the limits of free speech when it came to opposing this ideology. They had sensibly developed a phobia of Islam. This existential threat was very potent and very different, nothing at all like the free-for-all western pastime of kicking around the decaying corpse of Christianity.
Islamism and its cadre of useful idiots who push "islamophobia" had succeeded in achieving a unique state of protection for the faith. Anyone who valued their life would now question whether this was the hill they wanted to (literally) die on.
A valuable historical document, not least in timing. Charb finished writing this essay just two days before his assassination and is mainly focused on issues of free speech and defending the republishing of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. He references a previous Molotov cocktail arson attack on Charlie's HQ. He criticises those who blame the cartoonist victims involved and defends their rights even in the wake of global riots and threats to French embassies in Islamic nations.
“A believer can blaspheme only to the extent that the idea of blasphemy holds any meaning for him. A nonbeliever, no matter how hard he tries, cannot blaspheme. God is sacred only to those who believe in him. If you wish to insult or offend God, you have to be sure that he exists. The strategy used by minority group activists masquerading as anti-racists is to pass off blasphemy as Islamophobia and Islamophobia as racism.”
Charb rails against the creation of the term "islamophobia" and its weaponisation as a deflective force against criticisms of Islam and/or the behaviour of its adherents. The “liberals” who push these ideas and infantilise their violent charges come in for particular criticism. An interesting question might be that if the criticisms were in fact racially motivated rather than religiously why are there no enduring terms for "hinduphobia" and "sikhophobia" in the western world?
He goes to great lengths to assert his own left-wing socialist standing as well as that of his publication as if this could ever protect him from the blasphemy charges. Al Qaeda's magazine had featured Charb as one of seven targets for its followers to kill and he was extremely naïve to think he could appeal to the better nature of the rabid, fundamentalist murderers in his midst.
“What twisted theory makes humor less compatible with Islam than with any other religion? Asserting that Islam is not compatible with humor is as absurd as claiming that Islam is not compatible with democracy or secular governance.”
After the bloody warning of the 7th of January 2015, the slogan of "Je suis Charlie" was about as far as anyone would dare push the limits of free speech when it came to opposing this ideology. They had sensibly developed a phobia of Islam. This existential threat was very potent and very different, nothing at all like the free-for-all western pastime of kicking around the decaying corpse of Christianity.
Islamism and its cadre of useful idiots who push "islamophobia" had succeeded in achieving a unique state of protection for the faith. Anyone who valued their life would now question whether this was the hill they wanted to (literally) die on.
June 16, 2016
"'Sacred' texts are only sacred to those who believe in them."
This was a powerful book. Though a slender text, it's heavy, and I found myself re-reading sections to tease apart the snark from the poignancy. He makes a careful distinction between religion and racism that was really tough for me to wrap my brain around. Ultimately the thought exercise gave me a better understanding of where the Charlie Hebdo satirists were coming from. But it's still murky water for me. I do think Islamophobia is a shit term. And I know that racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia are painfully real. And I think I understand Charb's observation that the squeaky wheel fundamentalists often find allies in the liberals AND the conservatives of the world. It's the thing that Raheel Raza and Asra Nomani have been speaking out about. On the left: our efforts to be understanding and accommodating we are allowing dangerous interpretations of a belief system to poison our world with hate. And on the right: nationalism fuels racist flames.
It's the complexity of the satire with which I remain uneasy. Why do we have to poke at anyone, or any group? It's almost like the whole book was just saying, if you don't get the joke, you're just not smart enough. So many of the examples Charb cites in his book were situations in which an illustration was taken out of context, necessary bits omitted, making the message more hateful, more sinister. And that's what we do now. We take bits of stories, the flashy headlines, we jump on internet memes because we think we understand. But we don't take the time to create our own understandings. We don't really comprehend. We don't have time for that. We let other people, the media, come up with our ideas for us. Maybe we really aren't smart enough.
This was a powerful book. Though a slender text, it's heavy, and I found myself re-reading sections to tease apart the snark from the poignancy. He makes a careful distinction between religion and racism that was really tough for me to wrap my brain around. Ultimately the thought exercise gave me a better understanding of where the Charlie Hebdo satirists were coming from. But it's still murky water for me. I do think Islamophobia is a shit term. And I know that racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia are painfully real. And I think I understand Charb's observation that the squeaky wheel fundamentalists often find allies in the liberals AND the conservatives of the world. It's the thing that Raheel Raza and Asra Nomani have been speaking out about. On the left: our efforts to be understanding and accommodating we are allowing dangerous interpretations of a belief system to poison our world with hate. And on the right: nationalism fuels racist flames.
It's the complexity of the satire with which I remain uneasy. Why do we have to poke at anyone, or any group? It's almost like the whole book was just saying, if you don't get the joke, you're just not smart enough. So many of the examples Charb cites in his book were situations in which an illustration was taken out of context, necessary bits omitted, making the message more hateful, more sinister. And that's what we do now. We take bits of stories, the flashy headlines, we jump on internet memes because we think we understand. But we don't take the time to create our own understandings. We don't really comprehend. We don't have time for that. We let other people, the media, come up with our ideas for us. Maybe we really aren't smart enough.
August 30, 2016
Reading Charb’s posthumous letter on public transportation in Massachusetts during the 2016 election year is an unexpectedly social experience. I haven’t been asked about my current book choice since curiosity made me want to know what drew people to Ayn Rand, her novels, and objectivism. Her relationship with Alan Greenspan always intrigued me; though, that dialogue is an entirely different book review.
Although it takes less than an hour to read, Open Letter will force you to examine many of your longstanding assumptions. Is this pleasant? No. I do however think it’s necessary in today’s political milieu. I feel a personal responsibility this year especially. The if-then statements he posed which often lead to strong assertions required examination and re-examination by this amateur reader. I had to go back and re-read several sections.
Charb’s book makes you ponder martyrdom, freedom of expression, paternalism, racism, colonialism, sexism, classism (anti)intellectualism, and scores of other isms. It may not change your mind or political orientation fundamentally. It will however force the brave reader to examine personal biases and firmly held beliefs. What more can you ask from a political piece? This objective strikes me as imperative in the US where I see citizens avoiding and shaming perspectives at odds with their own.
All ideology isolationists should read this book instead of knee-jerk shaming alternative opinions. No learning or change happens with this approach. Indeed, we can all learn something from everyone if we remain open minded and curious. My rating reflects the belief that everyone should question their intellectual assumptions routinely.
Although it takes less than an hour to read, Open Letter will force you to examine many of your longstanding assumptions. Is this pleasant? No. I do however think it’s necessary in today’s political milieu. I feel a personal responsibility this year especially. The if-then statements he posed which often lead to strong assertions required examination and re-examination by this amateur reader. I had to go back and re-read several sections.
Charb’s book makes you ponder martyrdom, freedom of expression, paternalism, racism, colonialism, sexism, classism (anti)intellectualism, and scores of other isms. It may not change your mind or political orientation fundamentally. It will however force the brave reader to examine personal biases and firmly held beliefs. What more can you ask from a political piece? This objective strikes me as imperative in the US where I see citizens avoiding and shaming perspectives at odds with their own.
All ideology isolationists should read this book instead of knee-jerk shaming alternative opinions. No learning or change happens with this approach. Indeed, we can all learn something from everyone if we remain open minded and curious. My rating reflects the belief that everyone should question their intellectual assumptions routinely.
February 19, 2016
Este texto foi concluído em 05/01/2015, dois dias antes do ataque terrorista contra o Charlie Hebdo, no qual Charb perdeu a vida.É com esta nota de pesar que o editor abre este pequeno livro que é na verdade um manifesto pela liberdade de expressão.
Charb começa explorando o uso indevido do termo «islamofobia» que, segundo ele, visa defender uma abstração – a religião islãmica – e não os muçulmanos como indivíduos. Charb prossegue acusando a mídia jornalística de explorar o tema de forma irresponsável:
Hoje, o jornalista que pede a um muçulmano para comentar a "ascenção da islamofobia" só está pedindo, afinal, um comentário sobre aquilo que a própria mídia criou. Em resumo, ele contribui para amplificar um problema e em seguida finge se espantar com a existência e persistência deste problema.O autor também não poupa críticas a todo o espectro político. Acusa os nacionalistas e cristãos fundamentalistas da extrema direita de atentarem contra a liberdade de expressão, numa tentativa de roubar o protagonismo dos anti-islamófobos. Sobre a esquerda, a seguinte passagem é magistral:
A França é um salame que o Partido Socialista tem o infeliz costume de cortar em fatias comunitárias. E não é por respeito a essas supostas comunidades, mas por cálculo eleitoral.Qualquer semelhança com o que vemos hoje no Brasil não é mera coincidência.
June 1, 2016
Stephane Charbonnier wrote this book shortly before he was killed by Muslim fundamentalists who not not tolrate Charbonnier's fondness for freedom of speech and for saterical cartoons targeting the absurdity of religious fundamentalism and intolerance that plague our world.
He first wanted to make it clear that the term Islamophobia is not used correctly in the discourse on our relationship with Islam. The term means fear of Islam not hatred of Islam as it is currently misconstrued. He goes on to discribe the trap religious dogma buts its adherents in and the advantage the fanatical, homisidal individuals take in controling their ever increasing number of followers.
I felt that the book made some very good observations on the current conditions in the Middle East and Europe but he does not write with eloquence making much of what he has to say a strident diatribe. Thus the four stars.
He first wanted to make it clear that the term Islamophobia is not used correctly in the discourse on our relationship with Islam. The term means fear of Islam not hatred of Islam as it is currently misconstrued. He goes on to discribe the trap religious dogma buts its adherents in and the advantage the fanatical, homisidal individuals take in controling their ever increasing number of followers.
I felt that the book made some very good observations on the current conditions in the Middle East and Europe but he does not write with eloquence making much of what he has to say a strident diatribe. Thus the four stars.
October 12, 2016
The book is a powerful defense of free expression, and contains much information on the nature of French politics and the style of satire used in Charlie Hebdo. The author pulls no punches in his criticism of religion, but it is abundantly clear that the magazine is strongly anti-racist, and the frustration with having anti-racist or anti-fanaticism material protested as racist is palpable. It is gut-wrenching at times to think that there will be another attack in addition to the ones he describes, a fulfillment of the death threats he describes, just a short time later. Worthwhile and interesting reading.
March 5, 2016
I found this one by chance on the library website. I was intrigued, even before I learned about the author. Stéphane Charbonnier was a journalist, artist, and the editor of the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo. He turned in the manuscript for this a couple of days before he and the rest of the newspaper staff were murdered last January. Mr. Charbonnier was an outspoken critic of religion, and religious extremism, but he was no racist, and this book describes his feelings on the subject in a heart-felt way. There's a lot of good material here. I think I will add this one to my personal collection when I am able.
July 13, 2016
Not the best or clearest book I've ever read, which is why I gave it four stars. I still gave it a high rating, as I believe it's worth reading with important viewpoints worth considering.
There seems to be a tendency to conflate honest/fair criticism with racism/sexism(and the list goes on...) going on today. With it comes a tendency to hold some subjects so sacred, they can't be constructively discussed on an objective(much less subjective) level. This book brings up a number of incidents providing food for thought on this fallacy and on the danger it extends to freedom of speech and expression. A quick read, but one that will most certainly make you think.
There seems to be a tendency to conflate honest/fair criticism with racism/sexism(and the list goes on...) going on today. With it comes a tendency to hold some subjects so sacred, they can't be constructively discussed on an objective(much less subjective) level. This book brings up a number of incidents providing food for thought on this fallacy and on the danger it extends to freedom of speech and expression. A quick read, but one that will most certainly make you think.
April 29, 2016
He is so searingly honest, so articulate and clear in his viewpoint that I would call this a manifesto on free speech. It's unfortunate he paid with his life but it is evident that his cause was one he staunchly believed in. His words really gave me pause for thought on what we decry as discrimination and what we should just leave alone. Really, Charb is very bold and brave. He does not pander to the preponderance of offence that seems to absorb so much of our society. He calls it exactly what it is- petty and ridiculous.
January 27, 2016
Un bel essai, pleins de vérités, délivré dans un style décontracté. Essai d'autant plus poignant vu qu'il précède de peu son meurtre. Pourtant le texte semble être la réponse inespéré à pas mal de fausses polémiques de 2015. Si seulement la presse Anglophone pouvait se saisir d'une traduction de ce texte, ils arrêteraient peut-être d'écrire des conneries sur Charlie Hebdo à tout bout de champs. C'est dommage que ce soit si court.
February 15, 2016
Fabulous. An excellent critique. Pretty much everything he said is exactly what I believe in, he just put it in a way that I never have. I think Charlie Hebdo is too often misunderstood, misrepresented and maligned. To understand the magazine, this is a good book to read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews