Al Jazeera Ugly Comes Out In Leaked Emails, Revealing Fury Over Global Support For Charlie Hebdo
Brendan Bordelon writes at NRO:
As journalists worldwide reacted with universal revulsion at the massacre of some of their own by Islamic jihadists in Paris, Al Jazeera English editor and executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr sent out a staff-wide email....Below was a list of "suggestions" for how anchors and correspondents at the Qatar-based news outlet should cover Wednesday's slaughter at the Charlie Hebdo office (the full emails can be found below).
Khadr urged his employees to ask if this was "really an attack on 'free speech,'" discuss whether "I am Charlie" is an "alienating slogan," caution viewers against "making this a free speech aka 'European Values' under attack binary [sic]," and portray the attack as "a clash of extremist fringes."
"Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile," Khadr wrote.
No, what's "infantile" -- and barbaric and backward -- is a religion that insists on the death of anyone who mocks its looting, murdering, raping "prophet."
Here's his entire disgusting email, revealing that the guy is a propagandist for Islam:
FULL LEAKED EMAIL EXCHANGE:
Executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr:Thursday, January 08, 2015
Subject: AJ coverage of events in ParisDear Editorial colleagues,
Please accept this note in the spirit it is intended - to make our coverage the best that it can be .... We are Al Jazeera!!!!
My suggestion is that we question and raise the following points in our coverage - studio/anchors/guests/correspondents:
•This was a targeted attack, not a broad attack on the french population a la Twin towers or 7/7 style. So who was this attack against? The whole of France/EU society? Or specifically this magazine. The difference lies in how this is reported not in how terrible the act is obviously - murder is murder either way... but poses a narrower question of the "why"? attack on french society and values? Only if you consider CH's racist caricatures to be the best of European intellectual production (total whitewash on that at the moment)
•Was this really an attack on "Free speech"? Who is attacking free speech here exactly? Does an attack by 2-3 guys on a controversial magazine equate to a civilizational attack on European values..? Really?
•"I am Charlie" as an alienating slogan - with us or against us type of statement - one can be anti-CH's racism and ALSO against murdering people(!) (obvious I know but worth stating)
•Also worth stating that we still don't know much about the motivations of the attackers outside of the few words overheard on the video. Yes, clearly it was a "punishment" for the cartoons, but it didn't take them 8/9 years to prep this attack (2006 was Danish/CH publication) - this is perhaps a response to something more immediate...French action against ISIL...? Mali? Libya? CH just the target ie focus of the attack..?
•Danger in making this a free speech aka "European Values" under attack binary is that it once again constructs European identity in opposition to Islam (sacred depictions) and cements the notion of a European identity under threat from an Islamic retrograde culture of which the attackers are merely the violent tip of the iceberg (see the seeping of Far Right discourse into french normalcy with Houellebecque's novel for example)
•The key is to look at the biographies of these guys - contrary to conventional wisdom, they were radicalised by images of Abu Ghraib not by images of the Prophet Mohammed
•You don't actually stick it to the terrorists by insulting the majority of Muslims by reproducing more cartoons - you actually entrench the very animosity and divisions these guys seek to sow.
This is a clash of extremist fringes...
I suggest a re-read of the Time magazine article back from 2011 and I have selected the most poignant/important excerpt....
http://world.time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/?iid=gs-article-mostpop1http://world.time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/?iid=gs-article-mostpop1
•It's unclear what the objectives of the caricatures were other than to offend Muslims--and provoke hysteria among extremists.
Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response--however illegitimate--is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it's pointlessly all about you.
Kind regards
Salah-Aldeen Khadr
Executive Producer
Al Jazeera English
I particularly liked the Ross Douhat quote sent in reply by correspondent Tom Ackerman:
U.S.-based correspondent Tom Ackerman:Friday, January 9, 2015
Subject: RE: AJ coverage of events in ParisIf a large enough group of someone is willing to kill you for saying something, then it's something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn't really a liberal civilization any more....liberalism doesn't depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it's okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that's when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.
-Ross Douthat in the NY Times
Other leaked emails at the link.
via @claireberlinski
Is no one else at least concerned over the similarities between calls for 'anti-blasphemy' laws as implied by some people over the Paris attack, and the desire for 'hate speech' laws talked about below??
Or should we just be content to say it can't happen HERE and blame our politician-of-choice?
DrCos at January 10, 2015 4:20 AM
And they don't get it; this is exactly why there needs to be freedom of speech; so, we can see how infantile and ignorant they are.
Oh, and if the millions of moderate Muslims really were moderates, they wouldn't really be offended by something said by those who are "infantile" or "obnoxious." If they truly are moderate they would just shrug it off the way most Catholics and other Christians shrugged off Piss Christ or elephant-dung Madonna.
And for the record, those who didn't just shrug off Piss Christ and elephant-dung Madonna weren't upset at the "art" as they were upset at their tax dollars being used to offend them. That wasn't really anti-free speech as it was anti-don't-waste-my-tax-dollars.
I'm glad this email linked; we get to see their true colors.
Je suis Charlie - and I can be infantile and obnoxious too!
Charles at January 10, 2015 6:10 AM
"This was a targeted attack, not a broad attack on the french population a la Twin towers or 7/7 style. So who was this attack against? The whole of France/EU society? Or specifically this magazine."
So, Mr. Khadr thinks the hostages killed at the KOSHER market were journalists from Hebdo? And what about the unarmed Muslim police officer that was executed at point blank range?
Bill O Rights at January 10, 2015 7:06 AM
Trivia for anyone who doesn't know: Douthat's name is pronounced "DOW-thut."
lenona at January 10, 2015 7:45 AM
The Kouachi brothers say don't offend us, or we'll slaughter you.
Executive producer Khadr says don't offend us, or the Kouachi brothers will slaughter you.
This is a good cop/bad cop routine, they're both on the same side, and they both want the same thing.
Martin at January 10, 2015 9:59 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/01/10/al_jazeera_ugly.html#comment-5758855">comment from MartinYes. Although I would edit the "good"/"bad" to this:
It's totalitarian/totalitarian cop.
One of them just has a more "respectable" position.
Amy Alkon at January 10, 2015 10:44 AM
The ugly of mass murder apologist Al Jazeera is no secret. Flabbergasted a lil bit right now that anyone is surprised.
Teri Moran at January 11, 2015 4:11 AM
It's unclear what the objectives of the caricatures were other than to offend Muslims--and provoke hysteria among extremists.
I agree with this statement.
Under normal circumstances, I would agree that Charlie Hebdo was a bunch of jerks, who were basically taunting a bunch of marginalized poor people. Who the hell does that? Douches, that's who. I would have supported a boycott, agreed with picketers, etc. They were not providing thoughtful insight, they were just being assholes.
And according to Slate, they did not target all religions equally, they fired a guy for an offensive Jewish cartoon.
I think it's fair to call them Islamophobic. I think they are indeed a bunch of racists, as well, particularly against Arabs/North Africans. (Maybe they have good reason to be, I don't know their backgrounds, I don't care why they are racist, it suffices to know that they are).
BUT
Once you bring violence or threats of violence into the equation... that changes everything.
Once you start shooting people... well, at that point it makes it so they -can't- back down, can they, without looking like they are capitulating to violence.
Before, I never would have bought one... now I've ordered several from my local market. Because now I have to support them, because supporting free speech means supporting racist assholes and their free speech, too.
Amy's said it before, there's no need to defend non-offensive free speech. It's the ugly stuff one needs to defend, even if you have to pinch your nose, because no matter what, no one deserves to die for drawing cartoons. No matter how infantile.
And yes, I think infantile is the right word. And no, I don't think it is a good word to describe terrorists. Infants tend to be obnoxious, not mass murderers.
NicoleK at January 11, 2015 8:15 AM
Bollocks.
Almost every time someone attaches the suffix "phobic" to something that doesn't involve spiders or heights, that suffix traffics a lie.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has written about Islam. Among things she has said are:
She is not afraid of Islam. She hates Islam.
I am not afraid of Islam, but there are aspects to it that any clear thinking human being should reject out of hand.
That is not Islamophobia, that is understanding what Islam is: a violent totalitarian ideology with a sacred text that is at least as evil as Mein Kampf.
So please stuff that whole "phobia" thing. It is a label progressives use to fluff themselves.
Now about that "racist" word -- another case of progressive self-fluffery. Please give us the definition of the word "racist" and show exactly how anything Charlie Hebdo printed was racist.
I'll bet you can't.
Jeff Guinn at January 11, 2015 6:30 PM
"It's unclear what the objectives of the caricatures were other than to offend Muslims--and provoke hysteria among extremists."
When Mr. Douthat says this he reveals himself to be completely lacking in imagination, highly egocentric, hyper-sensitive, and without any sense of humor. With his stance, just about ANYTHING could be interpreted as an offense to Muslims and Islam, and ANY act in response gets a free pass from him and his Al Jazeera minions.
bkmale at January 12, 2015 8:28 AM
Way to miss the point of my post.
NicoleK at January 12, 2015 10:35 AM
">https://www.google.ch/search?q=charlie+hebdo+racist&biw=1024&bih=683&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Hxa0VJT6MsfMO5DqgdAC&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#imgdii=_&imgrc=bwPiRcB9d9o74M%253A%3BNgzuTZPqPS93hM%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fpbs.twimg.com%252Fmedia%252FB6x1HrjIEAAIEof.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fsocial-justice-fire-mage.tumblr.com%252Fpost%252F107444852419%252Fpm-hello-i-agree-that-no-journalist-artist%3B600%3B600> Here.
Referring to the the pope's visit... "Les Français aussi cons que les negres"
translation: "The French are stupid cunts just like the negros"
(Or, "The French are as stupid-cunty as the negros)
"Con" means literally means cunt, but is used to mean idiot or idiotic.
BUT THAT ISN'T THE POINT!
The point is, they've a right to say it, and I stand for the right to say it even though I think they are trop cons!!!!
NicoleK at January 12, 2015 10:51 AM
Leave a comment