New York Times explains why it won’t publish Charlie Hebdo cartoons


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

bombhead

Cowards: “[L]et’s not forget the Muslim family in Brooklyn who read us and is offended by any depiction of what he sees as his prophet.”

Note that the Times has had no reluctance to show images that are as equally offensive to its Christian and Jewish readers. I wonder why the Muslims get this special treatment?

Meanwhile, representatives of the religion of peace have now taken hostages, both in a factory near Charles De Gaulle Airport as well as in a kosher grocery store in Paris.

Update: It appears both hostage situations have ended.

Share

7 comments

  • Cotour

    Muslims are apparently “MORE EQUAL”, (we all remember the concept from a previous conversation) in the opinion of the liberal / progressive NYT’s, and MORE EQUAL is not reconcilable in the model of the free speech civilization that we in the West embrace, specifically not reconcilable with the American Constitution.

    And this is why Islam must become to be seen and dealt with in a different light, not only as a religion but as a political and military operations manual. The Constitution is not a suicide pact!

  • Edward

    From the first link: “But we still have standards, and they involve not running offensive material,” said the New York Times.

    Strange, but it is the pictures of Abu Ghraib, which were run in the NYT, that one of the terrorists declared was why he became a terrorist.
    http://www.wgal.com/national/paris-attacks-who-were-hostagetakers/30616844
    “Kouachi told the court that he was motivated by U.S. troops’ abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.”
    Do the standards of the NYT change depending upon who is in the White House at the time?

    It is not just that the NYT has the double standard that they will print what offends Christians, but they are willing to incite Muslims to join Al Qaida and other terrorist groups. One can only wonder whose side they want us to think they are on.

    Speaking of inviting your philosophical enemy into your civilization, one can only wonder at why people go to a new country, if they are unwilling to assimilate into that country’s culture. They clearly did not go to enjoy the benefits of their new country, which leaves the possibility that they intend to fundamentally change their new host civilization. Such ungrateful guests. Such gullible hosts. Sounds like a kind of confidence scheme, to me.

    I am astonished that the French have continued to allow the troubles that have come out of the self-segregated Muslim ghettoes. Such segregation only breeds the contempt that the Muslim community obviously feels for their generous hosts. Yet there is a call for tolerance, from the French President. Tolerate the intolerant? Tolerate the violence? Tolerate the death?

    After all, where did these terrorists learn that such appalling behavior is acceptable, and why did their friends, families, neighbors, and fellow Muslims allow them to believe it? If peace is the Muslim way, why is there so much Muslim violence throughout the world? Is the European Muslim community now holding “Peace-Ins” in which they remind their people that they should be grateful to their hosts, or are they accepting this as Standard Operating Procedure for their children’s behavior? [Rhetorical Questions Alert]

    Ironically, the Kouachi brothers got exactly what they desired. They died as martyrs. Victory points to the terrorists, not to the French police. Dead civilians, dead policemen, dead hostages, dead martyrs; shops closed during their busy time; and now people are afraid of (read: afraid to offend) the Muslims (is that not the definition of Islamophobia?); the French have lost on every front, on these attacks.

    The barbarians keep winning and civilization keeps losing.

  • Cotour

    The clash of modern civilizations has begun, we will see what actions in their law the French undertake to deal with their naivete.

    At what point will we deal with ours?

  • pzatchok

    I watched an Imam on FOX finally say what his followers of Islam think ‘peace’ is.

    For him peace is when one surrenders to God. When everyone surrenders to God.

    He never said if his God is the same God of the Jews and Christians.

    So I guess you will never have peace until you surrender to God. And he will be Allah’s instrument and will make sure of that.

    They fight for a God and a religion. Not their nation and the safety of their family.
    So they are on a crusade, a religious war, a Jihad, and the sooner that the rest of the world understands this the better we will all be.

    Islam needs a reformation and it will only happen from within or Islam is a dead religion.

  • Cotour

    You identify why Islam must be determined to NOT be a religion as we in the west define it. A legal campaign must be undertaken to accomplish this. The one percent of radical Muslims will always be able to drive the agenda of the peaceful Muslims. And Islam can not be reformed, to do so is to invite death for those who do so. We like the French have invited our philosophical enemy within our walls and have provided them with the means of our own destruction, the CONSTITUTION!

    But like I have stated before, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

    This may sound un American but it is the only way to realistically and effectively deal with this situation through our own legal system.

  • Edward

    On further reflection, this type of attack and the poor response is the result of disarming the population.

    Having a disarmed population resulted in the police feeling safe in running around likewise disarmed. However, someone forgot the basic problem: that police routinely deal with those who disobey laws, such as laws that forbid having machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, hatchets, machetes, and other nasty weapons that neither the police nor the general population routinely carry around. Thus, when they were confronted by armed bad guys, they were defenseless, resulting in dead civilians and police officers.

    When seconds counted, the equally defenseless police were only minutes away.

    There are only three purposes to any government: 1) to provide for the protection of the population from external and internal enemies, 2) to peacefully resolve disputes between members of the population, and 3) to promote prosperity by protecting the population’s rights, meaning: staying out of the population’s way (this last purpose is rarely understood by the rulers, who think that prosperity can only come from intervention by those who are smarter (read: the rulers) than the general population). Populations want protection without further interference in their lives, and that is why they are willing to pay taxes.

    Purpose number three is so important that the UN has a list of human rights that it requires governments to follow. Charlie Hebdo was exercising one of these rights, freedom of speech, as can be found here*:
    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
    No, not there at the top, go down farther … farther still … no, one more than that one … that’s right, it is right number 19, just after freedom of thought and religion (so how important does the UN think these freedoms are, if they are listed as afterthoughts?).

    So if a government is going to ignore purpose number three and disarm the population so that it cannot protect itself, it becomes vital that said government successfully execute purpose one.

    Unfortunately, France (as well as other governments) forgot its purpose for existing** and failed to provide adequate protection from both an invading body and the violence that said body has previously demonstrated. The reason that everyone is so upset is that they realize that the problem is not that Charlie Hebdo didn’t protect itself, but that the protecting government failed.

    What are we paying taxes for if our protectors can’t be bothered to protect us? Why are we paying taxes to a government that advocates that we surrender our fundamental rights in order to be safe rather than be protected or be able to protect ourselves?

    * Notice that the first sentence of this list of rights mentions all three purposes of government “freedom, justice and peace.”

    ** Please insert your own rant here. Suggested topic: rulers, elected officials, and public servants treating government as their own sources of power/wealth/control/job-or-retirement-security/whatever rather than as duties of public service.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *