You are here:   Charlie Hebdo > Shame On The Liberals Who Rationalise Terror
 
After the massacres in Paris on November 13, the US Secretary of State John Kerry made a statement so disgraceful you had to read it, rub your eyes, and read it again to comprehend the extent of his folly: “There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that,” Kerry began in the laboured English of an over-promoted middle manager.

“There was a sort of particularised focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, OK, they’re really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorise people.”



The staff of “Charlie Hebdo” in 2006: The cartoonists Cabu, Charb, Tignous and Honoré (first, second, fourth and fifth from left) were all killed in the 2015 attack, and Riss, third from left, was wounded. Meurisse, second from right, happened to be out of the office (© Joel Saget/AFP/ Getty Images)

Did you get that? Then allow me to translate. Kerry believes the satirists Islamist gunmen killed at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris’s 11th arrondissement on January 5 had it coming. It is not that they deserved to die. John Kerry is a New England liberal, after all, and does not endorse the death penalty for journalists. But liberalism is a two-faced creed. It can mean that you believe in individual freedom and abhor every variety of prejudice, including the prejudice that allows men to shoot journalists dead for producing a magazine they disapprove of.  Or it can mean that you go to such lengths to take account of your enemy’s opinions you become indistinguishable from him.

John Kerry’s liberalism, and the liberalism of millions like him, ignores Chesterton’s warning not to be so open-minded that your brains fall out. Kerry wanted to understand radical Islam and to seek the root causes of its apparently psychopathic violence. Not for him the knee-jerk condemnations of a red-state redneck. When Kerry applied his nuanced and expensively educated mind to the corpses in the magazine office, he discovered that the dead had provoked their own murders. The assassins had, well, if not quite legitimate reasons, then certainly a “rationale” which explained why they were “really angry because of this and that”.

Charlie Hebdo mocked the prophet Muhammad, Islamic State and Boko Haram. Its editor Stéphane Charbonnier (aka Charb), the cartoonists and columnists who wrote for him, and the police officers who died protecting their freedom (and ours) knew the risks and paid the price. They went looking for trouble and we should not be shocked that they found it.

All the rest of us had to do was to moderate our behaviour. If we were careful not to make terrorists “really angry” about “this and that”, we would be safe.

Perhaps I am being too kind to Kerry. But I assume even he must have had one doubt buzzing around his empty head like a dazed bluebottle. An associate of the Islamist gang that pumped bullets into the staff of Charlie Hebdo also took hostages at the Hypercacher supermarket at Porte de Vincennes in the 20th arrondissement. There he murdered Philippe Braham, a sales executive, Yohan Cohen, a student, Yoav Hattab, another student, and François-Michel Saada, a pensioner. The dead had provided no “rationale” and created no “particular sense of wrong”. They were ordinary citizens, shopping for food, as we all do.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
tindog13
December 26th, 2015
3:12 PM
Ooh, can't go along with that, he said nothing of the sort... that is grievously spinning someone else's words to bolster a different agenda. He said only what he said... that one attack was a specific reaction to a perceived blasphemous insult; the other was without specific provocation, random murder for terror's sake. Wow, it wouldn't even help to watch what you say anymore, you can speak clearly and still people will twist your words.

P.S.
December 23rd, 2015
12:12 PM
Dear Mr Nick Cohen, You define liberalism as abhorring any kind of prejudice. If so, this also includes the prejudice caused by vulgar drawings who offer no true criticism, to religious believers who ask for nothing more then to be left in peace. You seem th think that all those who disapprove of Charlie Hebdo's drawings and find them offensive to themselves or to others necessarily condone, or at least find excuses to, the killing of their journalists. Do you also believe all those who criticize the American policies approve the 9/11 attacks?

Anonymous
December 21st, 2015
9:12 PM
I'm still confused, I'm afraid. What is a Muslim, but a practiser of Islam? Anyone who stops practising Islam stops being a Muslim. If we talk 'semantics' therefore, Islamophobia is actually tantamount to Muslimophobia. Islamofascism however, is a different kettle of fish and those who practise this creed (and who are subset of those who practise Islam) rightly deserve our opprobrium.

craggy
December 21st, 2015
10:12 AM
Like Nick Cohen, I'm very worried about the compatibility of Islam with liberal democracy and about the regressive left's blindness to Islam's political and fascistic tendencies. However, similarly to Martin S above, I don't believe Kerry was legitimizing the Hebdo attacks. Rather, I think he was trying to draw a distinction between an attack targeting cartoonists thought to have committed a blasphempous act (ie drawing Mo) and an indiscriminate attack such as that on Nov 13th against people who've done nothing more than live in a country opposed by ISIS/Daesh.

John L
December 20th, 2015
10:12 PM
Nick Cohen makes valid points but his obvious priority is polemic against John Kerry and liberals in general. Kerry may have bungled the wording and syntax but the point he was trying to make is valid: the sympathizers of the Charly Hebdo attackers try to hide their murderous nature of this heinous crime behind the "sanctity" of their religion, a specious argument indeed. There is no such figleaf for indiscriminate killers of spectators at soccer games or at a theater performance. There is no justification for the former but our response to the Charly Hebdo killings has to include first and foremost a clear condemnation of any sort of "sanctity" of "feelings" - religious or otherwise - that supposedely trumps freedom of speech. It is not only islamists who want to impose their "taboos" on all of us. Given the opportunity all narrow minded fanatics of one creed or another will. Cohen is right when he critizes the knee jerk reaction to the noisily and violently expressed "religious sensibilities" of many adherents of Islam but he squanders what could have been a call to stiffen our spines in defense of a free and open society on personal attacks on John Kerry. After reading this article I wonder whose head is the empty one.

Charlie2015
December 20th, 2015
1:12 PM
Stop paying your licence fee and spend it on this instead: http://www.amazon.co.uk/praise-blasphemy-Charlie-islamophobic-fran%C3%A7...

Jack Shepherd
December 20th, 2015
11:12 AM
Western civilisation will either rise or sink to the occasion. At the moment, it looks like it's sinking but you never know, do you?

observer
December 19th, 2015
3:12 PM
GoJebus says that Trump is popular in America and Le Pen in France because of the failure of jelly-mould liberal politicians and a spineless media. Yet when the French electorate had their chance they chose not to support Le Pen. They opted instead for the cowardly, play-safe choice of more of the same. Perhaps they were horrified at the prospect of being considered "fascist" (that catch-all term of abuse for anyone who goes against the prevailing lib/left ethos). A society that thinks "true courage" is to engage in a relentless round of self-criticism while its enemies gather at the gates has the cultural and political leaders it deserves.

Neil Rose
December 19th, 2015
1:12 PM
What does Cohen actually want? NATO has already killed millions of Muslims over the last 25 years and laid waste to most of the middle east, whilst mainly targeting and eviscerating all secular Arab political institutions. What has been the result? and the campaign continues. So Liberals, a meaningless term of abuse these days anyway, are responsible for preventing the military from killing the right people? prevented Israel from slaughtering Palestinians, from drone attacks that have killed at least 3000 people in Pakistan and elsewhere. Prevented Muslims being the most hated minority in the UK. It must be really frustrating but most people don't hate Muslims even though hate mongers in the press and the establishment do their worst to try and inculcate hatred amongst people. Well Cohen you have failed.

Bitethehand
December 19th, 2015
12:12 PM
"He would not retract. Because Hebdo criticised religious extremism it had to be racist. No other explanation was acceptable to him or to most of the multicultural Left." A description that applies totally to Ally Fogg one time Guardian favourite opinion writers, who considers criticism of Islam "an extremely and inescapably racist thing". http://wp.me/P2m6oo-1ky

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.