Reflections on Charlie Hebdo as an outsider

For just once, I am forced to follow the trend and talk about Charlie Hebdo -- Not because I was in Paris, only a mile away from the attack on the Jewish the moment it happened; not because I spent a week watching reports on French televisions and living under "protection" of thousands of armed soldiers in every street in every French city; not because I experienced massive delays in public transportations due to the most minute suspision of danger -- I am forced to think about Charlie all because I am an outsider: non-westerner, non-islamic, non-jewish, non-religious at all, non affliated with any press nor have the least care for politics.

I write about Charlie because of the ressemblance between this string of nerve-racking events in reality and Performance Art. To what extent can we be held (ir)responsable for our actions, in Charlie's case, for the sake of liberty of expression, in my case, for the sake of art?

I am astonished, after reading a dozen heated opinions on the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo, to find the following header on the weekly's website:

Charlie Hebdo, irresponsable newspaper

This slogan is no doubt incited by the reactions to the cover of this week's Charlie, its first issue after half of the staff members' deaths. The cover portrays the Muslin prophet Mohammed in tears and saying "All is forgiven".

After millions of people protesting for the liberty of expression in major cities all over the world, now again, millions of people are protesting against the blasphemy. The tension is escalating, not residing. And now the Pope has joined, nicely arguing for the limit of free expression.

At this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the Americans are having stories (or even weapons) to hold up their anti-terrorist campaigns and attacking the entire law system of Muslin countries for the support of religious extremism.

Bref, the world is a mess now.

As an outsider, I keep wondering how malicious the cycle is if each party is "standing up to fight for its rights" firmly with unyielding faith? The attackers thought it was justified to kill because the cartoonists insulted their religion; the cartoonists thought it was justified to insult because the attackers killed their colleages. Then it comes to this fundamental difference between the two groups we (as outsiders) title "Westerners" and "Muslims": is killing lives more severe a crime than blasphemy? Is defending one's faith more sacred a mission than liberty of expression?

In my art, are my subject matters justified ?