1.18.15: Free Speech Isn't Easy

As Chuck Todd noted, we are 10 days removed from the terrorist attacks that occurred in Paris and since then Charlie Hebdo has published a new edition of its magazine; of course not surprisingly followed by mass protests in several Muslims countries around the world, and not just against the publication but also against the West.

The protests are due to Charlie Hebdo's new cover which depicts the Prophet Mohammed (a definite no-no for Muslims) saying, “All is forgiven,” and holding up a sign that says “I am Charlie,” a cover by the way that NBC and many other news organizations are not showing in its entirety. 

Protests against the magazine are obvious, but Muslims are also protesting the West because of the rallies that occurred in support of the publication. Those rallies are being wrongly interpreted as people in the West supporting the defamation of the Prophet Mohammed.  That logic is misplaced and misunderstood on such a grand scale by so many people, it is not accidental. There is no way that that happens by accident. Usually you only have to look as far as to see who profits from such conflict whether that be in monetary terms or populist terms and you'll get your answer. 

Democracies believe in free speech, and free speech isn't easy. People aren't necessarily saying that they agree with what the magazine says or represents, with the exception of it representing free speech. For those who are uncomfortable with the content of the magazine and therefore are reticent to support it, need to show a little bit more of a backbone and support it wholeheartedly (if you truly believe in free speech.)

We, at this column, do believe in free speech and we believe that Charlie Hebdo has the right to say what it wants editorially. Would we always take them seriously? Of course not.

However, given our belief in free speech we believe that you do have the right to see the cover and make your own assessment. Below is the latest cover of the publication, Charlie Hebdo:

This brings us to the interview with Charlie Hebdo editor-in-chief Gerard Biard, the main point you take from that it, and the comments from the panel that followed, is that free speech isn’t always pleasing, and again never easy. Mr. Biard explained that one of the philosophical tenets of the magazine is that religion entering into politics is wrong and should be challenged because it leads to totalitarianism. We understand what he's saying in as much as that forcing people to live by a narrow set of prescriptions doesn't allow for divergent opinion and oppresses it.  He also said that this perspective is applied to all religions and not just Islam. The very concept that he is explaining is a problem for people in many countries, and not just predominantly Islamic countries. There are many in the United States, evangelicals, that would disagree with what Mr. Biard is saying. In fact, in the United States, given that, many people disagree with the first amendment, which says that no law shall be made relevant to religion. Then there are the obvious Muslim country examples of Saudi Arabia and Iran whose governments are theocratic.

This is the debate; this is the conversation; this is not the reason to resort to violence. Another notion that comes to mind is that you have to ask, “How strong is your belief if you feel threatened by someone who disagrees with you. Sometimes, you can interpret anger as insecurity.  To not feel angry or insecure in your beliefs it takes a more evolved thinking, the deeper your understanding.

Reeling in all the esoteric discussion, we return to comment on what Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had to say about the current state of the Middle East. Once again, he believes that the cause for all this chaos happening now is that President Obama made the wrong decision in withdrawing US forces from the country. Mr. Graham still believes that the Iraq war was the right thing to do, and given that base thinking, the prism through which he looks at the US policy in the Middle East is warped, and that’s because going into Iraq in the first place was a mistake. 

Sen. Graham explained that there should be a coalition force led by the United States on the ground in Iraq battling ISIS, training the free Syrian army, and essentially becoming directly involved in the Syrian Civil War, which does not exclude fighting the Assad government directly. What Mr. Graham is advocating for is perpetual war. Not to mention the fact that the American people want to see less military intervention instead of more.  Mr. Graham would tell you that sometimes decisions like this aren't popular but they are necessary. No, that is incorrect. We find it funny that based on Mr. Graham's foreign policy views he feels that he would be a good candidate for president, which is simply ridiculous.

And this leads us to ending this week's column on a lighter note, which is the notion of Mitt Romney running for president a third time being comical. The Wall Street Journal in an editorial asked, “if Mitt Romney is the answer, what is the question?” That says it all and the only reason for Mitt Romney to run for president, and for you to vote for him to be president, is simply to see Mitt Romney be the president. That's it; there's no other reason for him to be president aside from his simple sole desire to hold that office. There are so many reasons why he should not do it that it would be incredibly difficult to go through them all in any reasonable amount of time.  Too many reasons to count, however we would speculate that at least 47% of those reasons would be enough to persuade him not to run.

Panel: Michael Steele, fmr. RNC Chair; Robert Gibbs, fmr. Obama Administration Press Secretary; Kelly O’Donnell, NBC News; Carol Lee, The Wall Street Journal