Writing in response to Michael Burrill’s piece on satire, Corey Farrell proclaims, “If you have ever offended anyone anywhere then you are Charlie, and I applaud you…”
Michael Burrill’s article on the satire of Charlie Hebdo is a little off the mark.
In fact, I fundamentally (*boom tish*) disagree with his view on the role of satire.
With all due respect Michael, the main role of satire IS too offend. The great Louis CK hit the nail on the head when he said…
Offending people is a necessary and healthy act…every time you say something that’s offensive to another person, you just caused a discussion. You just forced them to have to think.
Satire is not the villain here and neither is offensiveness wrapped up in it. Being offended is one thing, we all deal with it every day, and like I said it’s important because it provokes discussion. Blaming the satirist for the offence taken by someone else is dangerous because being offended is inevitable. The villains here are the mentally defective drones of douchery who chose to use the “offensive” cartoon mixed with their distorted view of Islam as some green light for murder.
Empathising with the moderate Muslim is becoming harder for people, but before you become incensed and start calling me a bigot, let me explain…
With the current climate of the Islamic State, whether it be Iraq, or Kobane, Martin Place, or Boko Haram’s rampage through Nigeria, our news feeds are constantly being bombarded with death at the hands of “Islamic” men, making our view on Islam as a religion of peace soiled and almost beyond repair. The real culprits of singling out moderate Muslims are the same douches who kill in their name. It’s pure and simple name association. We see it online, we read it, and we swim around it in its awfulness daily. It’s similar to police officers becoming jaded and burnt out after dealing with the same crimes committed by the same people. They form a pattern. It’s not ideal or impartial, but it’s a reality.
And surely the moderate Muslim would find the killing of innocent men and women done under the veil of their religion more offensive than a cartoon depicting their prophet?
As for the non-violent Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, I’m not a fan. Aside from their choice of words on most things, their refusal to condemn the most recent acts is in my mind deplorable, and I would say the same about the Catholic Church choosing not to condemn sexual abuse.
Compare it to when somebody’s parents die and you say “I’m sorry.” This doesn’t mean that you killed them. It’s just an expression of sympathy.
It should be noted that I’m an atheist myself and have a real problem with religion in general, so for those of you thinking I’m anti Islam, well, you’re only partially right. I am anti God…anti any omnipotent psychopathic “parent” claiming unconditional love (while writing books on many weird specific and barbaric conditions), while promising eternal damnation should you waver on any of them.
Take away the far-fetched horror story that is religion, the story that has been re-written, imitated and passed off as another “the true” religion many times over, from ancient Egypt, to Christianity, to Islam, and then, and only then, will you get close to curing “terror.”
A utopia void of religion, where people need no manual on how to be good.