Calm, knowledge and freedom of speech

A point of view is interesting on condition the author can back it up with sources of information. The letter written by Edward Duhigg is an example.

Mr Duhigg obviously did not see the same reaction to the Charlie Hebdo attack as I did. International media offered no scenes of hysteria or fury but instead showed people calm with sadness. Where was the hysteria?

Mr Duhigg claims that “one needs to consider the nature of the cartoons published in that magazine with their overwhelmingly anti-Muslim focus”. To test that claim I googled “une de charlie hebdo”. Eighty-three cartoons came up as follows:

28 cartoons on French politics

18 on French life

10 on Christianity

9 on Islam

5 on Judaism

4 on more than one religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism)

4 on French celebrities

3 on world events (US, the Femen feminist group)

2 featuring Hitler (general politics)

So where is the “overwhelmingly anti-Muslim focus”? Has Mr Duhigg ever bought or seen a copy of Charlie Hebdo? I very much doubt it.

He goes on to ask, “Why, for example, does France forbid the wearing of the burqa in public places?” Wrong again. The French law bans covering of the face in public, and by anything from a burqua/niqab to rubber masks worn by fetishists.

Mr Duhigg is right on one thing, however: “Surely Muslim women have the right to wear what they want and it is their freedom of expression to wear whatever they want.” Yes, women in France wear what they want, though the law bans covered faces. And we might ask how freedom of expression could be maintained while wearing a burqa, which covers/hides the mouth, ears, facial expression and emotions – all vital to communication. In this case, “freedom of speech with a burqa” looks like an oxymoron.

Gilles Bernard

Phon Pisai