Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Editorial: Charlie is No Chaplain!

Editorial: Charlie is No Chaplain! DOI 10.1002/aps.1504 BOOK REVIEWS AND COMMENTARY Allow me to begin with a flat‐out declaration: I am not Charlie. In other words, I do not feel solidarity with the editors, publishers, journalists, and graphic designers of the French publication, Charlie Hebdo, which depicted Islam's prophet, Mohammad (AD 570–AD 632), in degrading postures and vulgar situations. I find this particular manifestation of Free- dom of Speech to be irresponsible, indecent, and unacceptable. This is not on religious grounds. My disagreement has different roots, of which the following three are the strongest: (1) The racist angle: The Charlie Hebdo staff is largely White, and it is mocking the prophet of Muslims, who, in France, are predominantly African‐born, non‐White, individuals. (2) The post‐colonial angle: French Muslims are mostly from the African nations (e.g. Algeria, Morocco) that France had colonized. They are in France because France was in their countries. These Midnight's Children (Rushdie, 1981) are a minority and are being mocked by the dominant majority. The nefarious devaluation of the colonized groups thus continues. (3) The unfairness angle: France is among the 14 European countries where Holocaust denial is punishable by law. How is it possible to justify protecting the feelings of one religious group and not of another? Based upon these three angles, I find it hard to defend or even be sympathetic with Charlie Hebdo. Freedom of speech is not a “free‐for‐all” logorrhoea that can exist outside of ethical constraints. To be sure, this is not a position shared by others, as the books reviewed here and the opinions of their reviewers will readily demonstrate. Read. Think. And decide for yourself. Salman Akhtar Jefferson Medical College Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA salman.akhtar@jefferson.edu REFERENCE Rushdie, S. (1981). Midnight's children London: Jonathan Cape. 244 Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aps Int. J. Appl. Psychoanal. Studies 2016; 13: 244 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies Wiley

Editorial: Charlie is No Chaplain!

Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/editorial-charlie-is-no-chaplain-Er1L0J2Hkk

References (1)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ISSN
1742-3341
eISSN
1556-9187
DOI
10.1002/aps.1504
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

DOI 10.1002/aps.1504 BOOK REVIEWS AND COMMENTARY Allow me to begin with a flat‐out declaration: I am not Charlie. In other words, I do not feel solidarity with the editors, publishers, journalists, and graphic designers of the French publication, Charlie Hebdo, which depicted Islam's prophet, Mohammad (AD 570–AD 632), in degrading postures and vulgar situations. I find this particular manifestation of Free- dom of Speech to be irresponsible, indecent, and unacceptable. This is not on religious grounds. My disagreement has different roots, of which the following three are the strongest: (1) The racist angle: The Charlie Hebdo staff is largely White, and it is mocking the prophet of Muslims, who, in France, are predominantly African‐born, non‐White, individuals. (2) The post‐colonial angle: French Muslims are mostly from the African nations (e.g. Algeria, Morocco) that France had colonized. They are in France because France was in their countries. These Midnight's Children (Rushdie, 1981) are a minority and are being mocked by the dominant majority. The nefarious devaluation of the colonized groups thus continues. (3) The unfairness angle: France is among the 14 European countries where Holocaust denial is punishable by law. How is it possible to justify protecting the feelings of one religious group and not of another? Based upon these three angles, I find it hard to defend or even be sympathetic with Charlie Hebdo. Freedom of speech is not a “free‐for‐all” logorrhoea that can exist outside of ethical constraints. To be sure, this is not a position shared by others, as the books reviewed here and the opinions of their reviewers will readily demonstrate. Read. Think. And decide for yourself. Salman Akhtar Jefferson Medical College Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA salman.akhtar@jefferson.edu REFERENCE Rushdie, S. (1981). Midnight's children London: Jonathan Cape. 244 Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aps Int. J. Appl. Psychoanal. Studies 2016; 13: 244

Journal

International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies – Wiley

Published: Sep 1, 2016

There are no references for this article.