Alas, the editor in chief is deficient of the intellect to realize that he has circulated the same number of temptations for another evil to visit him in office. And here, the question vestiges, why should the editor incite extremists who are tedious to violence?
Gerard Biard, editor of Charlie Hebdo disregards that question and would rather censure the western publications that have declined to reprint his controversial cartoons in the aftermath of the January 7 mass shooting at his Paris.
"This cartoon is the symbol of freedom of speech, of freedom of religion, of democracy and secularism," Biard told NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday. "When they refuse to publish this cartoon, when they blur it out, when they decline to publish it, they blur out democracy."
To challenge that proclamation, let's reverse the wheel three years back and visit Charlie Hebdo offices.
In November 2011, the magazine's office was fire-bombed and its website hacked. The attacks were alleged to be linked to its verdict to rename that new edition "Charia Hebdo", with Muhammad listed as the "editor-in-chief".
After that episode, in his critique, "Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr", Bruce Crumley, Time's Paris bureau chief wrote, "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."
The writer warned against the enticement of extremists in the name of free speech while the cartoonists are with the intent of offending millions of moderate people.
Mr. Crumley wrote, "The violence inflicted upon Charlie Hebdo was outrageous, unacceptable, condemnable, and illegal. But apart from the "illegal" bit, Charlie Hebdo's current edition is all of the above, too."
Immediately, Bruce Crumley was accused for blaming the victim, Charlie Hebdo. Mollie Hemingway, in his piece Free speech meets firebombsaffirmed that "If Time magazine's leaders have any moral sense, author Crumley would already be fired." Do they want to fire him for his professional ethics, courage and decency?
Last week, Pope Francis approved the verdict of Crumley. Speaking of the attacks in Paris, the Pope has defended freedom of expression, but said it was wrong to provoke others by insulting their religion and that one could "expect" a reaction to such abuse.
On his flight to the Philippines, the Pope has said there are limits to freedom of expression, "one cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith," said the Pope.
Gerard Biard, the chief editor of Charlie Hebdo, notoriously, responded to the Pope in defense to his magazine's controversial satire of Muslim Prophet Muhammad, saying the cartoons protect "freedom of religion" and, at some level, "freedom of speech".
Sadly, that absurd response of Gerard Biard is defended by the (western) leaders. Challenging Pope Francis' assertion that there are "limits" to free speech, the British Prime Minister David Cameron said that "in a free society, there is a right to cause offense about someone's religion."
"I'm a Christian," Cameron said on CBS' "Face the Nation" on last week. "If someone says something offensive about Jesus, I might find that offensive, but in a free society I don't have a right to wreak my vengeance upon them."
That is not the authenticity in Europe. A paradigm of the conspiracy is avowed to the French authorities in litigating Charlie Herdo for a cartoon that had been deemed "anti-Semitic" by Maurice Sinet. In 2009 the cartoonist was sacked while the magazine was sued for 40,000 Euros. Sinet also reported a death threat posted on a site run by the Jewish Defense League.
As a matter of fact, it is a criminal act in France to mock the Holocaust the way Charlie Hebdo scorned Islam. A Holocaust denier can be imprisoned for a year and forced to pay $60,000 fine.