Did the editor and four of his cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo die in vain? No they did not. Their deaths served a purpose far higher than most of their sick lampooning ever did. Their deaths come as yet another stark reminder of the non-existence of an absolute, other than of course the absoluteness of God. As the Charlie Hebdo experience now teaches us -- there is really no true freedom of expression if you have to pay for it with your life.
But because freedom is an intoxicating notion, journalists often flirt with the same idea for as long as they can. The irony is that, all too often it is not the sane who eventually gives the journalist his reality check but some crazy guy who eventually decided he ain't taking it no more. Freedom of expression is an ideal that, somehow, seems always out of reach. Just when you think you are rocking it, you get a rude awakening.
I am not saying, of course, that those who died in the Paris attack deserved to die. On the contrary, I am sickened to my stomach by what happened. Senseless death always diminishes humanity. I have never been fanatical in my beliefs. But when I saw a sample depiction of the pope by Charlie Hebdo, I must admit to a sense of anger I have never felt before. So I can see where the real fanatics are coming from even if I do not see where killing is going to take them.
Those who died at Charlie Hebdo suffered from yet another failing aside from just not knowing there the limits of idealism end and reality begins. They were sitting ducks for the kind of work that they do. They were nailed to their desks at a permanent and identifiable address. They did not enjoy the security of anonymity that players in the new media invest themselves with.
Satire and lampooning belong to the new media. When you are dealing with hard copies in print, you are governed by legal parameters defined by the society in which you operate, themselves yet another stark indicator of the fallacy of true freedom of expression. This limiting environment of the traditional media may allow for a little traipsing over the line here and there, but eventually, if the law does not get you, some fanatic or just plane crazy will.
Nevertheless, I do not think we would be talking about Charlie Hebdo today if not for the crazy fanaticism of those Muslim terrorists who attacked its Paris headquarters last week. Charlie Hebdo has been at it for years, but in only the two times it was attacked (it was also firebombed once), the perpetrators have always been Muslim terrorists.
And I cannot help but ask what has really gone wrong. For whatever reason, Muslims leave their home countries to find new ones. But when they do, they simply find it hard to adapt and assimilate themselves. They end up cloistering themselves into exclusive communities that CNN, in the course of its coverage of the attack, described as "no man's lands."
According to the CNN anchors and correspondents, "no man's lands" are now found in every city and country where there are huge Muslim immigrant populations. In there, not even police and firefighters responding to alarms can enter. These communities have become de facto autonomous self-ruled enclaves beyond the control of the host governments where they are found.
Not that host governments are helpless. But they are saddled by too much political correctness. They are defined by what they believe cannot be done instead of doing what ought to be. As a result, these communities have become the perfect breeding ground for the spread if Islamic fanaticism. The funny thing is that host governments all across Europe, where Muslim populations are exploding (France has 5 million), are such suckers for lip service instead of concrete action.
In the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo, an actual countdown was made on CNN about which Muslim government out to be speaking out in condemnation of the attacks. It was as if condemnation will mean anything to a fanatic determined to embark on a suicidal attack. Well, as if in quick response, a slew of condemnations from Muslims erupted, including one from Hezbollah.
See what I mean? If even Hezbollah can come out to publicly condemn the attacks, then you know exactly just how shallow and empty a verbal condemnation is. What is needed, if moderate Muslims all over the world truly mean what they say, is action. Inside their "no man's land" enclaves, free from outside influences, everyone should know everybody else, know what they are cooking, and if what they are cooking is breakfast or some explosive device.
In other words, there should be less lip service and more action. The millions of moderate Muslims who only want to get on with their lives in peace should play an active role in stemming the tide of fanaticism spilling out of their cloistered communities. They need not be told what to do because they know. The problem is, would they? Until then we will not know, maybe until the next Charlie Hebdo.