Charlie Hebdo and Parisian mourning.
It was before the smoke had finished rising from the offices of Charlie Hebdo that I first heard the uncomfortable debate beginning. Yes the debate over the morality of what Charlie Hebdo were publishing had already emerged, meaning infighting had begun before the later sieges had even begun.
I must ask why? The blood was not yet dry and people were criticising the morals behind Charlie Hebdo, seemingly ignoring the tragedy that had happened. Time and a place. Not to say that they should not be able to criticise the magazine, it would be a bitter irony to suggest they shouldn't be able to, yet they should decide not to. No, the #jesuischarlie was to mourn those lost. Not to stand by everything the group has ever said and ever will say. No, an expression of solidarity against a magazine that was so cruelly torn apart on the 7th of January in a mix of bullets.
Now before my argument begins in earnest I must say that on the argument of the merits of Charlie Hebdo I am neutral. I just disagree with the timing of the debate. I must ask myself this though: am I qualified enough to discuss this magazine's merits and flaws? The truth is I am not. I do not understand the context to Charlie Hebdo's publication at all. I do not understand the full length and breadth of french politics neither do I strive to. I do not live in France and I am not aware of the subtleties of their culture. I do not understand the context. Would someone abroad who has never lived in England for a great amount of time see Private Eye as funny? Chances are not. It is the context that gears our brain towards the humorous meaning, we will not see the potential offensive meaning for quite some time. So no I cannot be partial to this debate.
However I would not stand by everything any publication has ever said. To say or imply that would be naive. Judge the publication by its next issue, where the context is known by the whole world.
This was neither about religion. Muslims should not apologise neither should they have to. This is not a religious issue. If we used these outside examples of journalists being killed then applied it to Islam it would be, as Reza Aslan said in an interview to CNN: "Using two or three examples to justify a generalization, that's actually the definition of bigotry." As the brother of Ahmed Merabet, the policeman killed in the attack said: “My brother was Muslim and he was killed by two terrorists, by two false Muslims,” I think this quote reinforces the point that Muslims are condemning the attacks, Christians didn't apologise for any of the numerous serial killers in the past and neither should Muslims apologise or feel any backlash from this event.
I think the problem I have is that five days on I feel I have to write this, to justify and deal with the debate already emerging. This is about deaths, not some argument to justify a magazine. It is mourning journalists and the fact it isn't five days on makes me concerned. Let the people mourn, the debate can come later.
Now five days on from the original date the mourning has been happening in earnest and the situation is beginning to be
