Archives for posts with tag: Charlie Hebdo

tripoteur de fesses en allemagne

‘J’ai etait Charlie’ when the barbarians tried to silence it.
Not because I agreed with everything that was published there but because I believe that it’s unacceptable to try to kill somebody – unless that somebody tries to murder you, of course.

Having said that I must confess that I find it harder and harder to understand what’s going on in Charlie’s mind.

“Charlie doit être là où les autres n’osent pas aller. Pour cette couverture, je voulais dépasser telle ou telle religion et toucher à des choses plus fondamentales. (…) En affirmant les choses clairement, ça fait réfléchir. Il faut bousculer un peu les gens, sinon ils restent sur leurs rails”

(Charlie must go where others do not dare to. For that I’m willing to leave behind specific religious ideas and reach deeper levels. … By speaking frankly (about a subject) one can convince the others to take the matter into consideration. Sometime you need to jolt people (outside their comfort zone) otherwise they’ll stay put on their tracks).

OK, I can agree with that. Even if I think that some of the ‘jolts’ are distasteful, to say the least,  the principle is correct.
But there is a small problem here. If the jolt is too powerful the target will not get just outside its comfort zone – and into the ‘thinking mode’ – but directly into a full-fledged rage. A state of mind which rejects reason and sends the brain into a frenzy, looking for arguments with which to annihilate the original message.

2233252_136_charlie

This, for instance, might be considered rude but it’s impersonal enough to prod some individuals into considering whether following blindly into someone’s steps  – just because that someone pretends to have God’s blessing – might be a wise thing to do.
In fact this message works precisely because it offers food for thought. Each of the viewers might interpret it according to their own ‘Weltanschauung’ but the ultimate responsibility for the interpretation lies with the viewer, not with the cartoonist.

This is why I can’t agree with the cartoon about Aylan.
There is no option there. The message is clear. Aylan would have grown up to be a sex-molester, no doubt about that – at least in the eyes of the cartoonist.

And this just isn’t fair.
Because killing hope is a lot worse than actual murder.

Yes, we need to take great care about how we help the migrants to find a place among us. No doubt about that.
The point being that corralling them into a ghetto won’t solve anything. On the contrary.

“When it comes to assimilating new arrivals, Europe could learn a thing or two from America, which has a better record in this regard. It is not “culturally imperialist” to teach migrants that they must respect both the law and local norms such as tolerance and sexual equality. And it is essential to make it as easy as possible for them to work. This serves an economic purpose: young foreign workers more than pay their way and can help solve the problem of an ageing Europe. It also serves a cultural one: immigrants who work assimilate far more quickly than those who are forced to sit around in ghettos. In the long run most children of migrants will adopt core European values, but the short run matters too.” (The Economist, Migrant Men and European Women, Jan 16th, 2016)

 

Mai multi prieteni de pe FB au ‘shared’ un status postat de Dan Alexe despre atentatul oribil savarsit aseara la Paris asupra redactiei Charlie Hebdo. Le inteleg si impartasesc oroarea. Numai ca e ceva aici care ‘ma roade la radacina’.
Respectul fata de ce?
Am auzit parerea ca asasinatele oribile de ieri au reprezentat un atac la libertatea presei. Pot fi interpretate si asa.
Revin la ‘respect’ si ma intreb cum vine asta? “Trebuie sa respectam ‘libertatea presei/de opinie’ si in acelasi timp trebuie – la fel de absolut – sa ne batem joc de ‘religie/dogma’? Nu cumva insusi ‘trebuie’ asta ne plaseaza in tabara intolerantilor? De orice fel?
N-ar fi mai bine sa ne respectam intre noi, ca persoane, in loc sa cautam tot felul de ‘valori’ de la care sa ne cautam apoi validarea?
E intr-adevar o diferenta fundamentala intre credinta in ‘libertatea presei’ si credinta in ‘Dumnezeu’ – asa cum este (ne) inteleasa acum de catre foarte multi dintre noi.
‘Libertatea presei’ functioneaza intr-adevar mult mai bine, in conditiile din lumea ‘vestica’, decat ‘Dumnezeu’.
Numai ca asta se intampla doar in anumite conditii si doar pentru ca ‘Dumnezeu’ a ‘murit’ (cel putin in sufletele noastre). In alte conditii si in sufletele celor care nu l-au omorat inca pe ‘Dumnezeu’ genul asta de ‘libertate a presei’ – si mai ales atunci cand aceasta este utilizata provocator – pare, pentru ei, o aberatie care trebuie ‘stearsa’ de pe fata pamantului.
A respecta diversitatea nu justifica cu nimic asasinatele de ieri si de astazi dupa cum nici a cauta explicatii despre cum a ajuns sa fie comis un fapt abominabil nu inseamna a-l scuza. In acelasi timp a impune altora, folosind orice fel de forta, un anumit comportament, indiferent care este acela, este o dovada de totalitarism/intoleranta.
De fapt, esenta libertatii presei consta in aceea ca nici o persoana nu trebuie sa fie ‘pedepsita’ (de nimeni, nu doar de catre stat!!!) pentru simplul fapt de a-si exprima parerile. N-are nimic cu ‘obligatia’ cuiva, si cu atat mai putin a presei, de a face misto de parerile, opiniile si nici chiar de credintele altcuiva. Si mai consta in obligatia statului de a pedepsi pe oricine atenteaza, in orice maniera, la aceasta forma de libertate.
Adica la obligatia reprezentatilor statului de a pedepsi pe oricine incearca sa impuna celorlalti, in orice fel, o anumita parere sau un anumit mod de comportament. Si asta tocmai pentru ca populatiile moderne au invatat sa respecte diversitatea, inclusiv in ceea ce priveste opiniile, si impun respectul diversitatii cu ajutorul statului care le reprezinta.
‘Avem nevoie de POSIBILITATEA de a rade, in siguranta, de orice, inclusiv de religie si de Dumnezeu!’.
Asta parca suna altfel, nu? Dar tot nu justifica actiunea in sine. Dupa cum simplul fapt ca putem, fizic, lua jucariile unui copil nu justifica, cu nimic, gestul.
La fel cum simpla posesie a armelor si abilitatea de a le folosi nu justifica cu nimic oroarea comisa de cei trei la redactia Charlie Hebdo. Indiferent de cat de jigniti s-au simtit de materialele aparute in acea revista.
Respectul persoanei celuilalt, despre care vorbeam mai sus, este singurul punct de plecare care nu trebuie sa fie validat de vreo valoare superioara si ca atare ar putea fi acceptabil tuturor, indiferent de convingerile fiecaruia. Religioase sau de alta natura. Iar de la respectul reciproc la ‘primum non nocere’, “in primul rand sa nu faci rau”, si astfel la adevarata libertate – aceea pe care ne-o aflam impreuna cu toti cei aflati in jurul nostru si nu impotriva tuturor acestora – mai este doar un singur pas.
%d bloggers like this: