Beyond the strict origin of the terms in the Assemblée nationale of 1789, Charlie Hebdo is in no sense a left-wing publication.
But even the Front National, as such, is by that definition part of the Left.
But even the Front National, as such, is by that definition part of the Left.
On any "Anglosphere" political spectrum, Charlie Hebdo exists at the nihilist end point of the libertarian Right, which has been and remains fulsome in its uncritical defence of the rag, as have been and remain the neoconservatives.
It is paleoconservative and High Tory voices that join the Left in pointing out that it either would be or ought to be illegal in the United States or the United Kingdom.
That illegality would be objectionable in principle only to people who believed that absolutely nothing ought ever to interfere with the unfettered operation of "the market".
That illegality would be objectionable in principle only to people who believed that absolutely nothing ought ever to interfere with the unfettered operation of "the market".
Charlie Hebdo's anti-worker employment practices, which are of a piece with its contempt for any and all State action, may be read about in the pages of Libération.
On this side of the Channel, the Morning Star has pointedly refused to join in the adulation.
And I was counting them off in that line of linked arms in Paris.
Never mind either Netanyahu or Abbas, as you prefer (or not). The ghastly French client-rulers from the former colonies in Africa were out in force.
David Cameron probably did not know who they were.
Well, some of us sure as hell did.
On this side of the Channel, the Morning Star has pointedly refused to join in the adulation.
And I was counting them off in that line of linked arms in Paris.
Never mind either Netanyahu or Abbas, as you prefer (or not). The ghastly French client-rulers from the former colonies in Africa were out in force.
David Cameron probably did not know who they were.
Well, some of us sure as hell did.
Great points. I think Charlie Hebdo's closest American cousins would be the creators of "South Park" who once wanted to depict Muhammad in an episode of their animated cartoon. Their network wisely prevented them from doing so. You are right, nihilistic right-libertarianism is a good way to describe them.
ReplyDeletePeter Hitchens today says what I tried to post here on why UKIP was right about French multiculturalism.
ReplyDeleteHitchens writes; ""France is just as guilty of multiculturalism as Britain. Despite posing as a stern Republican secular state, with illiberal, unenforceable gimmicks such as bans on face-veils, in practice France has permitted the growth of separate solitudes, in which an entirely Muslim culture has grown up on the edges of every major city, especially Paris. ""
Indeed.
David Lindsay needs to visit France sometime if he thinks it doesn't have multiculturalism.
That is simply not what the word means. Multiculturalism is a very specific public policy. That is the meaning of the word.
DeleteYou cannot use a word to mean absolutely anything that you might happen to like, merely because that happens to suit your purposes.
He is trying to do that more and more. It is doing him no favours.