Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.
The first part is tantamount to saying he asked to be executed because he drew a cartoon. This is exactly the same as saying that a woman asks to be raped because she dresses less than modestly in the opinion of someone.
Bill says he would never have the thought to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing them, implying he would never deliberately trash anyone he doesn't agree with, or who has ideals he doesn't happen to hold sacred. This is clearly not the case. He reminds us that he favors blasphemy laws, and he trashes people he doesn't agree with as 'clueless.' He even reminds us he doesn't hold free speech as sacred (that is, any speech that doesn't agree with what he says). He even holds that firing a member of it's editorial staff over internal editorial standards (which aren't even related to this) is exactly the same as killing people over a comic. It isn't, Bill.
Further in that same article, he conflates workplace harassment and discrimination (on the basis of sexuality - illegal here in the states) with posting a cartoon critiquing one of the major motivators of such divisive practices in the first place. This is intellectually dishonest, ethically reprehensible, and really just not a good thing to do. If the right to offend should be condemned, then Bill really needs to re-evaluate how offensive it is telling people that they are 'clueless' or 'phonies.'
Clearly, I think Bill isn't saying that the people he offends have the right to kill him, those 'phonies' who are 'clueless,' the people who should be whipped for offending his god, the people who should be killed for blaspheming his particular sacred thing while he traipses over whomever else's sacred things he feels like. Then again, as Bill says, that's a pretty damned narcissistic view to take.
Killing is bad. This response to his words is appropriate. Any further action should not happen, and will not happen. It is important to note that Donohue also agrees with the pope's notion that offending someone's faith is okay to meet with violence - you know, as long as it isn't HIS faith. Keep in mind, the pope said it was okay to punch someone who insults one's mother (bearing in mind that my mother was a real person - an important distinction).
To use Donohue's own words, why they would want to be associated with a man like the pope anymore defies rational explanation.
Anti-Catholic artists in this country have provoked me to hold many demonstrations, but never have I counseled violence. This, however, does not empty the issue. Madison was right when he said, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.”
Sure, he claims he never encouraged violence, but that's clearly a lie. Blasphemy laws are violent. He literally sides with the pope, saying to punch people in the face if they insult your mother (read: your faith, your god, your pet, your car, whatever). As I've said before, just because someone is insulted doesn't mean that the speech was offensive, nor does it mean it was aimed at the person it offended.
And the last line, that's just SO IRONIC IT HURTS.