I am writing this on the afternoon of Wednesday last, having returned from the funeral of young Matthew Meilak, to the news of the attack in Paris on people whose ‘crime’ was to draw cartoons.

Words are insufficient - desperately insufficient - to describe the depth of my sorrow in the context of the first event and the extent of my horror and anger at the second. Any small effort on my part to elaborate will have me descending into platitudes and banalities, though I have to add mine to the flood of condolences engulfing Matthew’s family.

That said, where does the column go from here? There are comments to be made and arguments to put forward and by the time you read this, days will have passed, so perhaps I won’t sound too opportunistic if I press on.

Traffic accidents always attract comment and interest, possibly because they’re the closest any of us come to violent death nowadays. As a result, the media tend to fall over themselves to be first with the news, racing to the portals to send out the details as quickly as possible, slaves to the scoop and to increasing page views.

It might be time for those responsible for these things to give some thought as to whether stopping the race wouldn’t be a good idea.

It was at about 11am on New Year’s Day that the news was broken, with the names of the victims and all.

Fundamentalism and ideological obdurateness are not the preserve of Islam

The question has to be asked: how confident was the portal concerned that it wasn’t actually breaking the most horrific of news in such a heartless way to people who deserved to hear it differently?

It also has to be asked whether the comments boards shouldn’t be monitored more carefully. No sooner had the news of the fatal crash seen the light of day than people were arguing, on the comments board of the portal that had broadcast the names of those involved, about whether seat belts had been worn or whether they should have been and other inanities.

Who, in the name of all that’s important, really cares?

A young man was dead, another was seriously injured and many lives had been shattered and these self-important know-it-alls were debating seat belts and verging on insulting each other.

Yes, we have freedom of expression and we’re all entitled to an opinion but surely a judicious exercise of the ‘do not publish’ button in the interests of, if nothing else, good taste and basic decency would have been in order.

Which brings us neatly, if almost too much so, to the tragedy, the outrage, of the events in Paris.

As I write, I’m listening to BBC Radio Five Live and someone has just made the point that, going forward, thought should be given to amusing without offending.

No, no and a thousand times no: there can never be any excuse for bullying, for intolerance, for repression, for violent fundamentalism and saying that we should “amuse without offending” is tantamount to doing just that, that is, excusing violence because of precedent provocation.

The people who carried out the attack did so not because they were provoked beyond reasonableness or because they had even an iota of justification.

Their feelings of offence at the way an icon or pillar of their faith was portrayed are no defence; they resorted to criminal violence, to murder and they are answerable and no-one else.

It is not the fault of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists that these thugs felt moved to violence. It is, no doubt, the fault of the thugs themselves and it is the fault of every other religious or ideological fundamentalist in the past, recent and remote, who has failed to stand up and embrace tolerance in place of imposition.

Let us not forget, while we sit here angry and disgusted at the attack carried out in apparent retaliation at the way the Prophet and Islam were portrayed, that fundamentalism and ideological obdurateness are not the preserve of Islam. Indeed, a look around our own immediate environment will allow us to discern traces of other types of religious fundamentalism that are not a million miles from where the criminals in Paris started their own journey.

Clearly, the harm done to Islam by these criminals, and by the prancing yobs who had greeted 9/11 with such glee, just to recall another instance of fundamentalism that gave ammunition to the bigots on ‘this’ side, is immense.

It doesn’t need me to make such a patronising remark, really, because it’s obvious that no true adherent of Islam can condone this, just as it’s obvious that no right-thinking observer can blame that ancient religion for what happened but, sadly, that is what is going to happen.

The anti-Islamic demonstrators in Germany will feel - forgive me - a warm glow of satisfaction that their efforts can now focus on a despicable attack that has attracted condemnation the world over.

Racists and bigots and Christian (yeah, right) fundamentalists the world over, in the Deep South, in Malta, Europe and worldwide, will now adopt the Je suis Charlie slogan without even coming within spitting distance of realising that they are just as guilty of the same crime they’re condemning, except in degree.

Humanists and agnostics and atheists, for all the world as if thugs and criminals do not live within their own ranks, will point fingers on their part and call for all religions to be banned from public view, even if they don’t actually say it.

If this had even the slightest chance of succeeding, I would support it.

The world would be such a happier, and safer, place if sanctimonious intolerant individuals stopped trying to shove their own personal brand of morality down my throat, but this applies in all directions, not only against Islam.

It applies, but not only, to the Catholic Church seeking to obstruct divorce, for instance, rather than restricting itself to reminding its members that divorce, as opposed to annulment, with angels dancing on pinheads, is immoral.

And now it’s time to go and watch myself on Iswed fuq l-Abjad on Net TV, which, I should mention, was recorded while the news from Paris was breaking, so I suspect it might look and sound a bit insular and restricted in viewpoint.

I rarely gaze upon myself on the box, given that I usually have better things to do, like watching paint dry or listening to the silence, but Frank Psaila decided to try a new format, so I thought I’d see if it worked.

Now if only someone would take on the Have I got news for you format and give it a local twist, wouldn’t that be something? Those who do can put it on as an alternative to On the Buses, or whatever that charade is called.

imbocca@gmail.com

http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs