Je déteste la violence, mais je ne suis pas Charlie
I was writing a response to Lex's excellent blog post on the Charlie Hebdo murders. Rather than hijack her blog with a giant reply, this is my response and general thoughts on this matter.
Like you, and right thinking person, I am totally shocked by the horrific violence of the terrorists in Paris this week. It's truly disgusting, and my heart goes out to all the victims, their families, Paris, and the people of France at this time. I can only speak for what's going on here in the States, but I find the reaction to the Charlie Hebdo murders sociologically interesting.
Very few people in here in the States had heard of Charlie Hebdo, never mind knew anything about the firebombing of their offices in 2011 by other whacked out extremists. Most people have never looked in an issue or seen any of the cartoons they print, and from the bits I've seen on the Net, but it seems to be that their entire point was to be an inflammatory as possible. [1]
The content in Charlie Hebdo is definitely not the kind of stuff that one would find in a mainstream publication here in the USA. We do not have press laws in the States, something we pride ourselves over, but France does: apparently, it is illegal to print or even say something publicly that denies the Holocaust, or print something anti-Semitic. However, while we do not have such laws, there is a pretty well drawn line on what is considered "tasteful," and most publications will not pass that line or risk raising the social ire of people from various persuasions. This is why Charlie Hebdo would never see the light of day in the States.
What I find interesting is how the Right and the Left are falling over each other to put out the loudest condemnations about this attack. The Left because the press has been attacked, and the Left in the USA has always supported maximum freedom for the press, The Right's interest here in the States is due to Muslim maniacs doing this, and it's another incident to paint Islam as a dangerous, vile religion (of sorts) and the West has to wake up and deal with Muslims in its midst. Both sides are saying that to suggest that Hebdo might have been a bit more circumspect in what they printed, especially knowing that maniacs were gunning for them, is essentially giving in to terror. That's a very good point.
The vast majority of Muslims don't want to commit violence or have violence around them: they just want to live their lives and raise their kids. However, contained within Islam is a vile strain of Fundamentalism which combines a total lack of morals, no human feeling, and crazed religious ideology. The Islamic State is the ultimate form of this sick, twisted mixture, and what this small but violent cadre of maniacs wishes the world to look like.
I agree giving in to these people is simply cowing to fear and repression. But at the same time, what Hebdo was doing to Islam (and yes to Christianity with images of Christ on the cross and the one I reference below) is taking a very beloved religious icon and running him through the mud. They are not just insulting to "The Terrorists [tm]," they are insulting over a billion people worldwide. And while they have right to print what they see fit, at the same time they did that knowing that unlike in Christianity or Judaism, there is that sizeable, sick, twisted group of thugs in Islam that will go gunning for people.
There is no excuse for violence, ever. There is no excuse for murdering people, ever. Within the limits of the law of their society people should be free to print or say what they want without fear of being killed over it. We don't live in a noxious place like Saudi Arabia where criticizing the government/clergy can get a person a 10 year jail term and 1000 lashes meted out over nearly a year. [2]
At the same time I think there is a certain social responsibility that the press needs to have. National Public Radio here in the States (NPR, which while officially non-partisan does veer a bit toward the Left) refuses to print the Hebdo cartoons because of standards they have, and claim that many news outlets here in the States agree. As they said on their website in a news article on this:
Photos showing just a few of the magazine's covers could lead viewers to mistakenly conclude that Charlie Hebdo is only a bit edgier than other satirical publications. But a comprehensive display of Charlie Hebdo's work would require posting images that go well beyond most news organizations' standards regarding offensive material. At NPR, the policy on "potentially offensive language" applies to the images posted online as well. It begins by stating that "as a responsible broadcaster, NPR has always set a high bar on use of language that may be offensive to our audience." [3]
I think that journalism can be edgy, pushing matters in the face of the public that it needs to see without resorting to bathroom humor and vile depictions of anyone's faith. Can Charlie Hebdo print that? Sure. Should they face violence or death for doing that? Never. But should we be surprised that in doing it, they attracted people with no moral compass, no human feeling, and a history of vile, destructive acts to come gunning for them? I'll say it: no, we should not. It remains utterly unjustified, appalling and sick while at the same time not exactly surpising.
Getting back to the point of this post: Charlie Hebdo does not just poke fun at terrorists, they poke fun at religion in general, using pretty lurid pictures to show their ire toward it. This is a trend in Europe where religion is dying on the vine -- according to statistics, 12% of the French public goes to weekly religious services (compare to nearly 35% in the USA), and 50-60% of the public considers itself "non-religious." So fewer people are going to care. Here in the States though, if a college publication were printing images of a "holy three way" on their cover of the Trinity in a sex act, the Right, which is busy screaming about "press rights" would utterly flip out and denounce the magazine. And if their office were firebombed, I can already hear the talking heads on Fox News going "well you know, we don't support violence, but look at what they printed....can we be surprised?"
No, we'd be saddened, shocked and disgusted, but probably not surprised that some maniac with a burr up his butt decided to play judge, jury and executioner Freedom cannot be parlayed into "carte blanche to do what I want, when I want, and how I want and live in total freedom from any social consequences of my acts." We do not act in a vaccum, but in a social arena where our acts are seen, scrutinized and given reactons by social others. And there are bad, uncivilized others out there. A lot of them. People who will not use the accepted Western means of protest, boycott and even legal action where appropriate. These bad people will hurt or kill others. And it is the responsilbity of each person to balance their freedom with social responsiblity. As Elenor Roosevelt said:
Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect
Well said. Survivors at Charlie Hebdo seems to remain as they were. Dutch cartoonist for Hebdo, Bernard Holtrop (aka "Willem") said this [4]:
Marine Le Pen is delighted when the Islamists start shooting all over the place," said Willem, 73, a longtime Paris resident who also draws for the French leftist daily Liberation. He added: "We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends.
I will say this: Mr. Holltrop does seem to really undestand how things are. And while I stand firm against any form of ideological violence against people for saying what they wish, I do not stand with Charlie Hebdo in their attacks on the faith of billions of people, Christian, Muslim or otherwise, to get a cheap laugh. This is undoubtably an unpopular position to take these days, but c'est la vie.
-V
Footnotes
[1] An example of Charlie's vile humor that would inflame people here in the States to the Nth degree: http://media.meltybuzz.fr/article-1369251-ajust_930/ce-n-est-pas-la-premiere-fois-que-charlie.jpg
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/saudi-blogger-first-lashes-raif-badawi
[3] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/10/376098073/why-youre-not-seeing-those-charlie-hebdo-cartoons
[4] http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4613488,00.html