The Charlie Hebdo shooting, on the 7th of January, was a violent and appalling act of terrorism that resulted in the death of twelve: ten employees, mostly cartoonists, and two police officers. In related acts over the following two days, five more people died at the hands of accomplices.
The media uprising in the wake of the shooting was passionate and spectacular, culminating in unity marches across France, with over 1.6 million protestors just in Paris; 40 world leaders attended to show their support.
All of the above is true, but it is not the whole story. It is easy to latch onto the media’s spin and accept it as ultimate truth - while intelligent, critical discussion can still reveal hidden depths to something that at first seems black and white. Let me make this clear: the “je suis kouachi” hashtag on twitter was appalling. I thoroughly condemn these acts of terrorism. I wholeheartedly agree that in democratic, secular society there is a necessity for constant, even offensive criticism of every institution, with satire, good satire, being the best vehicle for this - but there is something of a double standard in the French consciousness.
When the French people marched to the Place de la Nation from the Place de la Republique, they marched not just for Charlie - they marched for a concept called Laïcité, the separation of religion from the public sphere to the point that crucifix necklaces and, rather more intrusively, the hijab are banned from schools. I am entirely for secularity - there is no place for the entwining of sin and crime in democracy - but there seems to me a contradiction in the French marching not just for freedom of speech, but essentially for the restriction of freedom of religious expression.
Controversial comic Dieudonne M'bala M’bala was prosecuted for “inciting hatred” when producing very much the same content as Charlie Hebdo - but focused on mocking Jews. Where exactly lies the difference between the prosecuted and the revered? Charlie Hebdo is defended tirelessly - and while, yes, satire is meant to draw blood, and yes of course ideas and dogma should be challenged, satire is also supposed to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” - and in the Muslim-wary Europe of today, who exactly is the comfortable? I’d be much more inclined to point towards those who sit in their thrones of xenophobia than a Muslim who happens to share the name of their god with a handful of horrible, violent extremists, as well as 1.8 billion other peaceful followers. Might I remind you that the KKK acts under the name of Christianity - as does the Westborough Baptist Church and as did the Nazis. And where do you see ordinary Christians being held accountable for the gassing and lynching and picketing by Christian extremists?
Yes, freedom of speech is incredibly important. But there is a point at which freedom of speech should not ethically justify horrible, pointed offence. Not that Charlie Hebdo is the Nazi Party: but take this extreme example - the hundreds of comics and children books and posters produced by Nazis mocking Jews (stereotypically large noses, huge black robes, stacks of money) and blaming them for problems far beyond any ordinary Jewish person’s control. Or perhaps the horrible grinning faces that make for the KKK’s interpretation of any Black person. Now put them in the context of Germany in 1936, or 1950’s America. Surely there is a point at which freedom of speech becomes unjustified, cruel and appallingly offensive? There is no need to fetishize it: just because we can say something, doesn’t mean we should. Of course anyone has the right to draw the Prophet Mohammed and associate it directly with the extremist actions of individuals who do not represent his peaceful teachings, and his billions of peaceful followers worldwide - many of whom happen to be ardently opposed to the depiction of their religious leader full stop - but is that really satire? Is it comforting the afflicted? Or is it just feeding into a larger mainstream of prejudice - prejudice itself the institution really worthy of being criticised and mocked.
As Europe steadily swings to the right, we can only fear that there will be further gains on the part of the Islamophobic, searching desperately for a nice, general and easily accessible group of people to neatly blame for both terrorism and the perceived problems of immigration. Does it matter if they’ve been living in Britain or France for generations, and are absolutely contributors to their society? To some people, not a jot.
The protests of the 12th of January were an incredible show of support, and commendable - but where are the 40 world leaders publicly protesting the thousands of deaths in Syria and Gaza? Many of them directly or indirectly at the hands of the West, who drew the Sykes-Picot line, trained Al-Qaeda and even now stand back as Israeli drone-warfare continues. The Paris march was a beautiful thing, but that beautiful thing should be happening in the name of many, many other causes besides.
Following the Sydney hostage crisis back in early December, #illridewithyou went viral: a preventative measure by conscientious members of the community who feared a backlash of anti-Muslim sentiment, offering support to Muslims travelling alone who might be threatened. The hashtag was inspired by a Facebook post about someone offering to walk with a woman who had felt threatened enough to remove her headscarf. This kind of drawing together of the community is exactly the sentiment required to face off hashtags like #jesuiskouachi and pave a way to a better, freer, more tolerant future.
