The French have spoken, and there shall be no speaking! Waging war on drugs, militant people, nations, all of these things are easy matters compared to the fight that the prosecutors of the state must enact upon people of a certain kind in the cities of Paris: They fight the war against opinions. Last week, in case you misunderstood the news, there was an attack on Charlie Hebdo by a group of upset children who could not agree with Charlie on who would play with which toys. After the shootings on January 9th, only two days after, a large force of heavily armed gorilla soldiers ensured that the shooters would never return for a repeat performance. The fight cannot be called over by any means due to those who show their support for the dead shooters, utilizing their power of free speech to wreak havoc on the streets, then go to bed by the time the sun goes down (French curfew).
As the Western World has decided to accept, freedom of speech has been promoted as a human right and a true form of democratic evolution. However, in France, it has its limits. One man who was arrested for a possible condoning statement was a french humorist named Dieudonne M’bala M’bala who posted on Facebook, “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly.” Coulibaly being the name of the shooter in the French market that happened the same day as Charlie Hebdo. Though there is plenty of proof that Dieudonne is not a terrorist, his previous attacks done through his right to free speech broke France’s free speech laws.
Now I know many of you may object to France’s choice to break down on freedom of speech for those who want to show their support for the shooters of Charlie Hebdo, who fought for freedom of speech, but I support the French government. It must be hard to lose their people, especially when you do not know who could be an enemy. That is why it makes perfect sense to me that they arrest anyone and everything that says something that possibly condones the terrorists. What else could be a better solution than to arrest anyone who says things in support of the shooters, or says nothing to support Charlie Hebdo. In fact, I always felt it would be even more helpful if we arrested anyone who was unwilling to say anything. I cannot stand those who don’t give a comment or an opinion. Freedom of speech requires a comment, or else they are not practicing their fundamental right. And yes, perhaps their comments will cause me some anger and, yes, maybe I will pick up a gun and decide they need to be shot, but it is what they deserve for practicing their right to freedom of speech. And I cannot shoot them until they tell me where they stand on a particular issue.
And sure it looks like France is being harsh on people, but they are only doing exactly what Pope Francis argued in an interview on the Papal plane, “If someone ‘says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,’ he joked, according to an Associated Press translation. ‘It’s normal. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.’ ” The Pope calls for us to limit the fundamental right of speech freedom, which is the example set by France for all nations to follow. Freedom of speech should be limited to protect those who wish to practice free speech from being shot at (vague quote inferred from the Pope’s comments), as he went on to say when condemning the violence against these men that insulted his religion, and I think his mother should be offended. The Pope is willing to punch his trusted sidekick for saying something against mom, but he isn’t willing to shoot up a group of people for insulting his religion that his mother was kind enough to raise him with? What cruel fate for his mother.
If only the Pope had the balls of a man named Bill Donohue of the U.S.-based Catholic League who said this about the editor, Stephane Charbonnier, “Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive.” So true, Mr. Donohue! Why blame the shooter, when we should be blaming the victim. As I always say, it isn’t the rapists’ fault if the girl is cute. Anywhere between a six and a ten cute scale, as voted by the judges on American Idol, the rapist should be set free. The editors and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were asking for a shooting by practicing their fundamental right to free speech. We cannot blame the shooters since Charlie published magazines with images of Mohammed, other religious leaders, political issues, or social concerns and walked into clubs in a cute dress just looking to have fun.
If only the United States practiced France’s idea of free speech, we could all be in prison and we would no longer have a prison problem, we would assure all of the world that none of us would ever leave the country due to an inflation of criminals that need to be incarcerated. Then the Mexicans would have no desire to enter our borders, relieving us of the illegal immigrant issue, and this isn’t including all of the Canadians trying to take away our capitalist health care from poor Americans. Truly, a limited free speech is the best kind of free speech. It gives us the opportunity to punish those we despise for saying things we hate, just like the Salem witch trials. And the limited free speech gives our unlimited government more to govern, it is the greatest idea since the invention of God-given authority: No one can prove who has the power.