(11h) Absolute freedom of press does not exist

Unfortunately, what was to be expected happened again: another terrorist attack on a newspaper, now in France, because some madmen felt they were insulted by cartoons published in a French newspaper. I say 'again' because in the past years there were already attacks on other news agencies such as in Denmark, all for the same reason that cartoons were published that show the Prophet Muhammad and try to ridicule him and thus a whole religion because, as Muhammad was the founder of Islam, ridicule him equals ridicule Islam equals ridicule its believers and their believes. And don't forget, the extremists from other religions are the worse to ridicule people of other religions although some atheists are also good in making fun of others.

I have no right to insult, only a right to inform and discuss things in a polite manner

It is very sad innocent people died such as the (Muslim) policeman and others during two attacks the next day. I also feel sad journalists were murdered for publishing some pictures although it is different. Because journalists know the world as they analyse and report about it and thus the journalists knew what they were doing, they knew that their publication would anger some Muslims (even if only two or three amongst them) or that some extremists may choose some vulnerable people such as people with a mental illness or even children to carry out the attacks (often the extremists in power don't kill as they want to survive so that they can have power in the future because religious extremists sacrifice whoever for their own gain).

For decades the extreme right has tried to ridicule Islam and anger the Muslim world. Only days before the attacks extreme right was protesting in Cologne, Germany, against the so-called Islamisation of Europe because they want to get rid of foreigners while an Eritrean refugee was murdered the night of similar protest in Dresden (although it is not yet known who murdered him). A few years ago, an American Christian extremist wanted to burn Qurans although he was stopped from doing; nevertheless, he wanted to burn these books in the hope people would die. Indeed, every religion has its extremists.

During these same years, moderate politicians spoke out against the hate that extreme right tried to spread throughout Europe (and other places) in the hope their hate would result in fear by white people towards others and that this fear would result in white people demanding foreigners to leave. The extreme right politicians claimed it was their right to speak out against certain people in our society and to have the right to insult others. And indeed, politicians should be able to voice concerns although without spreading hate and acknowledge that certain elements in society are dangerous. But politicians should also suggest solutions to reduce the anxiety while they often denied problems out of fear to be connected with the extreme right. Still, the problem is always that, when one extreme makes noise, the other side has to exaggerate its own position and ignores the problems so that any problem can become bigger.

And now that a newspaper in France demands the same right as extreme right politicians, i.e. the right to insult Muslims and others, almost every politician and millions of people support them by claiming that the freedom of speech is absolute. Oh, the extreme right should be happy as finally almost everyone defends what they already claim for many years: you should be allowed to insult and you should even defend the right to insult or you are on the wrong side (but don't dare to insult the extreme right). The power of journalists is almost unlimited in the name of free speech.

But we know the result of the 'right to insult' as also in the past certain people (such as Hitler) claimed their right for free speech should be absolute although they didn't like other people's right of free speech. Indeed, Hitler demanded his right to insult Jews and other minority groups and as a consequence one Jew killed a German diplomat (it seems even an anti-Nazi diplomat) in Paris in the hope it would awaken the world to the anti-Semitism while the murder was the signal for Hitler to punish the Jews (and others) during the Kristallnacht and the following years. Indeed, the murder angered many Germans who were brainwashed each day for a number of years that all evil comes from the Jews (and some other groups). And today we are being prepared to fear Muslims, even the nice ones, and thus one of these attacks can be sufficient for people to attack Muslims (and which is understandable as people from that religion carried out the attacks). Hitler also defended his own right for free speech by blocking everyone else's right. Similarly in these situations: these newspapers demand the right of free speech and to publish whatever they think they should be able to publish but will ridicule everyone who will claim it is unacceptable to claim the right to insult. After Hitler, people no longer accepted that politicians should be able to ridicule other people, we can equally expect in future that these events will result in a press that will need to take into account other people's feelings although at this moment many celebrate the journalists. Of course, there is a difference between reporting about certain Muslims who attack other people and explaining why they are angry versus insulting them while knowing it angers. The main difference between now and the 30s is that Jews didn't kill while quite a number of Muslims attack although sometimes I wonder whether the Jews were that nice in the 30s to trigger such an enormous hate against them (such as wealth versus poverty and the unwillingness to share but this can't be discussed as freedom of speech is limited).

I don't claim the newspaper Charlie Hebdo is racist, but that quite a number of a certain kind of media knows what they are doing shows the re-publication in a German newspaper of the cartoons that appeared in the French newspaper, including a warning that more attacks can be expected and indeed, the next day a firebomb was thrown into their offices (by whom???). Because a certain section of the media wants to get rid of everyone who is different and hates multiculturalism. They want that we fear Muslims or people who look like them and thus insult or tell lies in the hope that one day some can no longer control their anger. But equally, in general this kind of people also hate gays and women who are free and dare to 'disobey' men and 'liberals' (also called lefties) and thus the right to insult can now be used against those people. As expected, the attacked newspaper will again publish some cartoons to insult religions, including Islam, because now a few million people approved they can insult in the name of freedom of press. And thus people of religious faiths but maybe even others will be tested when also their choice how to live will be ridiculed and thus anger amongst many people may grow while others may understand that 'the right to insult' means they too can be ridiculed although it can also be used to spread disinformation. Still, this is a dangerous game by the publisher as we experienced during the past weekend. But no mercy in the name of free speech. Not only ordinary Muslims are angry but also powerful and in the past moderate countries and allies are starting to react. Also Pope Francis explained journalists that the right to insult is wrong by telling them that if his righthand man would curse his mother, he could expect a punch.

Of course, I don't defend the actions of those madmen who killed innocent people and I don't mind they are gone although I find it a pity such young lives were so destructive. Indeed, I already spoke out of destroying Isis (that claims to be a Muslim organisation) before they can further conquer and kill or force more people to join them and attack others. Therefore, I am thankful that the USA and some other countries defend innocent people against their attacks while other countries turn away their head so they don't need to see the suffering of people (similar to what many countries did when the Jews were suffering in the past). But, because our unwillingness to help people who are under attack and because Western policies in many parts of the world defend governments that suppress their own people when those people dare to speak-out (just as the magazine did) (here an example of a much better blogger than I am as shown by this quote: 'Secularism respects everyone and does not offend anyone ... Secularism ... is the practical solution to lift countries (including ours) out of the third world and into the first world' but this could not be written) or don't force governments to act when their own people are murdered while we welcome those leaders during a march in Paris for the right of free speech, many Muslims are angry for their unjust treatment. Western politicians could have refused to be seen by those who suppress their own people or even support extremists. Therefore, I refuse to defend the newspaper's right of absolute free speech and to insult because journalists study the world sufficiently enough to understand that the unjust treatment of many people makes many angry and what certain people may do when they are ridiculed while those journalists don't try to unite. Indeed, although the cartoons may seem quite innocent to me, they are not in countries where people are much less educated than us.

And many Westerners are not much better. President Obama was continuously called a Muslim or a foreigner because some people in his country didn't like a black person as their boss. For decades Muslims were ridiculed in Europe by both extreme right and certain sections of the press who never reach out to them but instead hoped people would fear them, even those who are integrated. As a consequence, many people were afraid of employing these people who as a consequence felt excluded. Similarly in the US where a growing number of black people have enough of the racism of certain powerful white people and thus become angry with all white people. The UK, and certainly London, was different and people of all races worked and partied together but even there the mood is changing dramatically.

And thus extreme right and the fundamentalists will win because fear for others will only continue to increase although the march tried to demonstrate the opposite. In the end, almost everyone may become a racist out of fear for the others and demand that foreigners leave this continent or worse, as in Germany or in Rwanda, one killing too many may start violence towards people of that group. And believe me, when I was a teacher for only 1.5 years, I had to remind myself not to become a racist and that not all foreigners disturbed my classes while equally some white kids disturbed the lessons. I also learnt that some people will never listen to reason. It will affect everyone: friends and family may become enemies while enemies may become friends in their choice of support for one or the other side.

But equally, I don't understand people from any religion who continue to defend their own religion while ridicule other religions although most have similar values. Indeed, many of our troubles result from allowing extremists to preach (including some priests, rabbis, imams, ...) or from religions that refuse to apologise for the evil they have spread over the past centuries and even today. And there are extremists in every religion who deny science and condemn people they don't agree with (such as women) while people continue to listen to them (although I think often out of fear). And it is likely that many people will return to their own religion for support until their own religion turns against them as it often does. An example is that more than 100,000 people (including atheists) protested against gay marriage in France, a country that declared more than 200 years ago that religion should not play a role in politics while a marriage should bring joy in families.

Religions know they are close to their end. But before they become an obscure group, many try to have their last moment and bring others down with them instead of being a force for the good. Because, the more extreme religions become, the more likely people will turn against them. In the end, we may all unite as humans and turn against religions unless religions continue to defend those who are right and condemn those who do wrong. But most religions condemn at least a section of society who are right and defend some who are wrong in order to maintain their power. Still, many continue to follow religions because it can equally be a force for the good such as giving education or healthcare.

Many of the people protesting against the attacks did this because they really believe in a better world where we should all be able to live together. However, they should equally realise this can only happen if they demand respect for everyone and not the right to insult as that will not bring people together. The powerless often use violence if they are ridiculed while some powerful profit and the rest suffers. Still, if extremists within religions continue like this, more people will turn away from them although we may have learnt that you can't insult people because it can make people dangerous. These people become angry because they think they have to defend a god, much less because they are insulted themselves. It is like parents who become angry when their child is offended by others and want to defend their child if no-one else does. Or the child may one day decide to defend itself with disastrous effect on others as we sometimes read in media while the survivors no longer defend the right to insult as they understand its possible consequences. People don't want to insult their friends, so why do they want to insult others? The journalists are now celebrated as hero's who defend freedom of speech but they should realise that one day, after a few more attacks by extremists after more publications, the mood of the public may turn against them too. As I published before, for me 'Freedom of speech' does not equal 'Freedom of stupidity or to insult' because in unstable times brains should rule our lives more than ever.

Finally, we should also STOP telling boys and young men they should be 'REAL MAN' as this confuses them. They may think 'real man' defend their right with aggression while abuse women. Many of these men are nice when alone but when in company they think they have to proof they have larger testicles than their friends. These men should have been told that 'real men' defend the weak against the aggressive, not to be the aggressor (although some may claim defending their god is defending the weak). We should tell them that daring to be themselves and even daring to show weakness or that they are hurt can mean being strong (although they should not exaggerate).