Don't Start Nothing, Won't Be Nothing

See Also


“…Let’s be clear that every single organization, major organization, Muslim organization throughout the world and in the United States, every prominent individual, be it political or religious leaders — everyone has condemned, not just this attack, but every attack that occurs in the name of Islam.”

Anyone who keeps saying that we need to hear the moderate voice of Islam — why aren’t Muslims denouncing these violent attacks doesn’t own Google.”

I figure we might as well discuss the terrorist attack in Paris which destroyed Charlie Hebdo, one of those white Western establishments which made a career of degrading other people and calling it satire.

Did they deserve to die? Of course not. Words are never grounds for killing someone.  Ass-whooping?  Maybe. Words?  Not so much.
Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.

Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.


Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.

Anti-Catholic artists in this country have provoked me to hold many demonstrations, but never have I counseled violence. This, however, does not empty the issue. Madison was right when he said, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.”

I'm not even a fan of organized religion, and it's not so much the religion which bugs, but rather the "organized" part...but we won't get into that.  That being said, the Western world can't seem grasp that pissing off 1.7 billion Muslims is a really bad idea.  For starters, 1.7 billion Muslims is more than double all the white people in the world.

When we're talking about numbers like those, your views and opinions and feelings on your right to be raging bigots pretty much becomes a moot point.  We're not seeing how you're enriching the minds and hearts of humanity through degradation and sacrilege.  (Seriously...seeing a religious icon in pornographic situations uplifts and elevate us how?  It's intellectual and enlightened and witty how?  It's artistic and innovative and imaginative why, exactly?)

On behalf of all the brown folks who tend to be collateral damage (RIP Officer Clarissa Jean-Philippe...and every Sikh and Hindu who has borne the wrath of Islamophobia), I'd like to make it clear that we are deeply uninterested in dying for you just because you don't know how to interact with other people in a civilized manner.

The incident at Charlie Hebdo has gotten Muslims discussing how to react to criticism of their faith, their prophet, and Allah (criticism is prohibited in Islam).  Now, being a non-Muslim myself, I'm not going to weigh in on that debate.  But I would like to remind my dearest Muslim siblings that these outsiders who criticize your faith haven't The First Clue what it means to submit to the will of Allah, and you should see them as being no different from the infidel barbarians your ancestors tried to civilize a few times back in the day...to (very) limited success.

So while counseling Muslims whom you sense are "at-risk", do kindly remind them that the talentless hacks at institutions like Charlie Hebdo are not worth their time, their anger, and certainly not worth their lives.


  1. Oooh..you just don't know how happy to see you bring up this topic!

    What does the police brutality cases of Michel Brown and other Black people, The Interview movie and the Charlie Hebdo have in common? All three are dealing with reprecussions of people who simply doesn't want to take responsibility for their actions.

    While my hearts go out to the people who have been victimized by the killings, what did Stephan expect?, There are people who are dead serious about their faith. Just because he's not Muslim doesn't give him a pass to disrespect others right to who they are.I'm sorry, but He and his crew was very wrong in jeering one's faith. Free Speech doesn't mean bad mouthing it.

    We all also witnessed the jeering of The Interview movie. Again, what did people expect making fun of an off dictator? The United States have been at odds with North Korea for a long time. When daddy Jung -Un was alive, you seen how he felt about us and the son isn't much better. While I'm not for Kim, you can understand why he's got upset at this movie. You not only jeered him,but the movie talks about KILLING someone..not making fun of him but knocking this guy off. If we publicly told someone that we were going to kill them, it would be considered to be terroristic threats that will land us in jail/prison. Technically, to say that you're going to kill someone ( a dictator in this case) would be an "act of war".. at least that I thought the military would say.

    Lastly, it wasn't that long ago that we were talking about the man who killed those two NYPD cops. It was stupid for Gov. Cuomo and other governmental official to think that someone was going to take this crisis in their own hands. For decades..even centuries, Black people and other minorities have been victimized by racist Whites and more victimized by a supposed" justice" that is more brutal towards them than actual criminals.

    The NYPD and other police departments want to call them " savages" yet these same guys think it's just funny to sing remakes of Jim Croce song about a Mike Brown's death( Glendale,Calif Police) or telling people these guys got exactly what they got regardless of their innocence or guilt and no matter how obvious cops purposely murder others, they are automatically innocent..especially when you can see..like with Eric, Tamir and Michael, they are White police officers.

    Gee..I wonder why call if this is happening?*sarcasm*

    1. *Typo* third paragraph, first line..Let me change to " We also got to witness the controversy over The Interview movie..."

  2. Very well said.

    You know what their (the French media) response was yesterday? Let's make a sketch with prophet Muhammad and a TV host! Yeah, the host was asking questions to someone in the backstage who acted like he was the prophet, saying that he loved the caricatures and went to Charlie Hebdo office to take the orginal caricatures as he felt flattered. He said other things too but I was rolling my eyes and it was near the end.

    I'm not Muslim either but I can't understand this mentality.

    "Anyone who keeps saying that we need to hear the moderate voice of Islam — why aren’t Muslims denouncing these violent attacks doesn’t own Google.”

    > Yup. Let me add something: anyone who says that doesn't own a freakin' TV nor have Muslim friends. Duh. (though the US demography is different)

    I'm glad to read such things here and from the blogs you mentionned because this perspective is barely brought up in France from what I've seen (not a whole lot though). I do understand that we're mourning as a nation, and now is probably not the time to criticize dead journalists, which was why I kept my mouth shut IRL and online to not piss people (till yesterday) and be respectful, but what you said is important and must be said.

    Oh, and about the Black female cop who was killed, President Hollande personally called her mother to show empathy. Nice gesture.

    1. What a class act by President. Hollande. God bless him.

  3. It is naive to forget that the way we frame the free speech debate is not just about constitutional law, but also about power, politics and privilege. It should escape no one’s notice that the two most recent examples of free speech under assault that inspired national and international reactions were both forms of speech entrenched in the perpetuated marginalization and humiliation of disempowered non-White, non-Judeo-Christian communities.

    “The Interview” wasn’t just about fart jokes and anti-Asian buffonery; it was an articulation of America’s Yellow Peril fears recast in “satirical” comedy. Charlie Hebdo‘s magazine covers weren’t just about taking a stand against organized religion; it was an articulation of the West’s deeply entrenched Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate (and specifically the fraught history of colonialization between France and Algeria) recast in “satirical” cartoons. In both cases, the intended targets of the speech might be deserving of criticism — either extremist terrorists or a tyrannical government guilty of the worst violations of human rights in the world — but the stroke of the pen is also overly broad. We forget that the vast majority of those who must endure the daily consequences of Seth Rogen and Charlie Hebdo are not terrorists; they are Muslims and Asian Americans, who commit no other crime than being non-White and non-Christian in a world where the mainstream culture is both.

    And this right here is the point and I wanted to make more than any other but was nowhere near able to to state it so brilliantly. This isn't about free speech. This is about the privilege of irresponsible speech. POC don't have it and white people like to get drunk on it.

    1. Sounds like a good blog, thanks for the link and quote. It's quite interesting to read the American's perspective and how they mix American issues with ours, though I don't have knowledge on many American issues/news/movies.
      I agree, this is what it is about. Yesterday I also was thinking about the same thing in a confused way but they voiced it eloquently. The irresponsibility part of what you said reminds me of M's post above, she's right.

    2. "This isn't about free speech. This is about the privilege of irresponsible speech. POC don't have it and white people like to get drunk on it."

      ^Yes. As soon as I heard the news my first thought to the "free speech" argument was privilege. I will be honest and say that the Charlie Hebdo building had people who though they were untouchable. Privilege can inflate egos like that. It is tragic that people died yet to completely spit on someone's beliefs, culture and identity and not expect anger is a bit ridiculous. There is a real disconnect and a few real sit downs with the journalists and the local muslim community need to be had.

    3. " Free Speech" as some people have become accustomed to is really a joke! It really is a figment of minorities imagination. Just to prove this theory, how about that French comedian , Dieudonne? Supposedly, he was practicing his right to free speech yet he got arrested for the very thing that Charlie Hebdo was doing. Wow..the stench of hypocrisy is thick to the core. Then again the myth of free speech doesn't apply to minorities.


Comments are no longer accepted.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.