Agora Charlie Hebdo Special Edition

Page 1

Agora

Trinity

Trinity College Dublin’s Political Magazine

Charlie Hebdo Special Edition


France is in the Streets: Again? In the past, France has been lampooned in the media in a practice known as “French bashing”. Now that the reasons for being on the front page are different, let’s not forget the old question: why the hell do French people never react as one would expect them to? While many countries have engaged in heated debates as to whether or not the newspaper was right to allow the publication of the cartoons in the first place, France is in the streets. Since January 7, people started gathering, the highest concentration being on the 11th with around 3.5 million people in the streets. It has been the most significant gathering since the liberation in 1944. If the reaction is stunning for many countries, it is - let’s not forget - the most typical response that the French people could have. One single event is often enough to ignite a situation where tensions have existed for some time. It happened in 1789: after two decades of tension, the expulsion of one minister led to the Revolution. In 1830 and 1848, a couple of orders from the King, and a gunshot, led to two new revolutions and changes of regime, whereas in 1968 it was different. The entire world was in the streets, so the French people had to join in. Demonstrating is the main source of national expression. And that is exactly what is strong about last week’s walks: national expression. For some years you could have asked any French person what united France’s people, and the common response would have been that the word nation is an inappropriate one for the French people. The controversy about French Identity has been discussed in Parliament repeatedly. Yet for the first time in a long time, being French means something. A long time ago people died in order to give human rights to the people, and on Wednesday the 7th, they remembered that. They remembered that the fight for rights is not historically settled but shall continue every day. They realised that one thing linked all the people to each other: they live as free men; with a conception of freedom that is so extensive that many countries, though European, cannot understand fully. It goes without saying that showing an image of unity of the French people is necessary in such a situation. As cruel and as scary as the events can be, French people need unity. Secularism is a principle France often boasts of, yet it has not always been well implemented. A conservative part of the population does not consider French Muslims to be French. Political extremists have lent weight to those ideas. The Front National, with Marine Le Pen at its head, made up 20% of the vote in the presidential election, and more extremely, won the majority in the French seats in European Parliament. Marginalised by a part of society, French Muslims have difficulties finding jobs and accommodation. This all leads to tensions within the population, and the worst scenario France could face - even worse than the attacks and the war against terrorism - would be a division within its own people. Let’s not forget that a century ago, the famous Dreyfus case divided the population for more than twenty years, and all of it started from the fact that a Jewish man – Captain Dreyfus – was wrongly accused of being a German spy. Partition in to two camps would be a fatal blow to French values as it would go against the principles of equality, freedom of opinion, freedom of religion, and hence repudiate the ideals that formed the basis of the modern conception of France and its democracy. Camille Maye LLM, International and European Intellectual Property Law

2 | Agora


“For the first time in a long time, being French means something. A long time ago people died in order to give human rights to the people, and on Wednesday the 7th they remembered that.� Special Edition | 3


“There have been attacks on innocents by lunatics for as long as there have been weapons.”

On January 18th Le Journal du Dimanche, a French Sunday newspaper, published a poll gauging public attitudes towards free speech in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The question was framed with the statement "some Muslims feel attacked or injured by the publication of cartoons or images of the Prophet Muhammad" and asked one thousand members of the French public how they thought that they should respond to this. Participants could choose from one of three responses, indicating that they believed that France should "consider these reactions and avoid publishing these cartoons", or "ignore these reactions and continue to publish cartoons". Alternatively they could indicate that they had no opinion. Only 1% of respondents did so. Of the remaining 99%, 42% selected for option 1 and 57%

4 | Agora

voiced their support for option 2. Both responses had their merits; it is easy to see why one might be sympathetic to either of them. Le Journal, as so many have over the past fortnight, has framed the debate about how Western politics, media, and values should respond to this tragedy as one between freedom and tolerance. This is a mistake. We should not have to choose between treating every member of our society with the respect they deserve as a human being, and our duty to our own conscience. It would be foolhardy in the extreme to do so. Indeed, those who would benefit most from society’s narrative being constructed this way are extremists of all stripes, not least of all the perpetrators of the attacks themselves. It may seem trite but the first thing we should take away

from this situation is that nothing that the cartoonists published or could have published warranted a response comprising automatic rifle fire. The right to express one's opinions, no matter how controversial they are or how much others consider them to be in poor taste, freely and without fear is essential in order to have an open and democratic society. As such it should be upheld and protected without fail. It is essential in order to enable people to express themselves and believe in whatever they see fit without which a person’s dignity as a human being is fundamentally compromised. Charlie Hebdo was engaging in one of the most important uses of this right, satire; which at its best strives to act as a check on the privileged and the powerful and expose stupid and reactionary beliefs wherever it finds them.


However just because the magazine was striving to do this, this does not mean that it was succeeding. Satire, when done well, should be "punching up", mocking things like the Islamic State, a brutal horde sweeping across the Northern Iraq killing everyone who doesn't agree with their distorted version of Islam, partially out of a commitment to a hyper-violent neo-Wahhabist ideology, partially so that they can loot their victims’ houses. In practice however, by lazily mocking Islam and Arabs in general, not just the specific beliefs of IS and other jihadists, a sizeable amount of Charlie Hebdo's output seems to be "punching down" at a predominately Muslim immigrant population that already finds itself bullied, over-scrutinised and otherwise "othered" by a mostly white, middle class western media. This doesn't matter with respect to the difference of opinion found between Charlie Hebdo and the jihadists; obviously the satirist was right and the murders were wrong. But it does matter to France’s Muslim population who have just had two manics whom they had nothing to do with slaughter 17 people and claim that it was in the name of their religion. There have been over a dozen violent reprisals against French Muslims since the Paris attacks. This is unquestionably abhorrent. There have been attacks on innocents by lunatics for as long has there have been weapons. These lunatics frequently profess some ideological reason for their crimes, from the environmentalism of the Unabomber to Anders Breivik apparently acting for democracy by shooting 66 members of a political party's youth wing. The fact that these people identified themselves as Islamists does not mean that it is any more likely that other Muslims

will launch an attack on an office than members of the Green Party will send academics nail bombs in the post. To be perfectly clear there are probably a few religious people and environmentalists who would do both of these things. They are not mainstream. The attackers are to the average Muslim what Joseph Stalin or Pol Pot are to the average Labour voter, or the Westbro Baptist church is to the average Christian; someone or some organisation who you really wish would stop going about using the same name as you and saying that they believe the same things as you when it's blindingly obvious that they don't. Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than by the death of Ahmed Merabet, a French police officer assigned to protect the magazines offices from an attack. The fact that he was a Muslim of Algerian decent, like the terrorists, did not stop him from trying to defend the innocent people in the building by trying fight the attackers off. Nor did it stop them shooting him in the head as he lay wounded and unarmed on the pavement. This is why it is so important that the discourse we have going forward is framed in the right way. We are talking about highly important, frequently sensitive things that are easily misconstrued, misunderstood or oversimplified. We cannot afford to have an "us vs. them" mentality when it come to how we view those of different faith or different cultural backgrounds to our own. In 1919 in Vienna, a young Karl Popper grew disgusted with and left the student communist party that he had joined. He did this after he witnessed them provoke a street battle in which 8 people were shot by police in an attempt to gain the sympathy of an working class apathetic to the Marxist struggle. It

was hoped that the violence would "sharpen the divisions" between the classes and lead to greater support for the communist cause. This is just as true now: the attackers knew that most teenaged Muslims in France, being teenagers, cared about the new Taylor Swift album and what they were going to wear out on the weekend and didn't care about fighting to establish an Islamic caliphate. It was hoped that by creating a dichotomy between being Muslim and being French in the minds of the public, the community would be further ostracised and more sympathetic to extremist rhetoric. Equally, we have to acknowledge that almost any action we ever take has the potential to offend someone, and that there is a small chance that that person will be unable or unwilling to express their discontent through any means other than an act of violence. We should not consider who our words might offend before we speak; instead we should ask are the warranted, fair, accurate and do they reflect a well considered opinion on whatever we are speaking about. If this is the case we should speak fearlessly, not only because it is our civic duty but because it is the only response to terror. People become terrorists when they want to impose their beliefs on others but have no other way of doing so. The extreme Christian right in America no longer use the Klu Klux Klan as their enforcers as they did in the 1920's; they now find it cheaper and more effective to hire lobbyists. Fear is the only way terrorists can make us change our behaviour. Courage and consideration are all that is needed to ensure that they do not succeed. Jonathan McKeon SS PPES

Special Edition | 5


The terrorist attack that took place at the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo on 7 January 2015 has truly affected the media. By targeting journalists, the very idea of the right to freedom of expression challenged. Moreover, all around the world the media treatment of this attack demonstrates the limit between politics and freedom. As a result, one might wonder to what extent the role of the media will be required to change after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. On the day of the attack at Charlie Hebdo, the media kept people updated about all the facts related to the investigation through the Internet, which has permitted a ready access to information. As a consequence, not only in France but also abroad, a

6 | Agora

What Role for the Media?

global mobilization of the population had been started by the end of the day. A wave of solidarity has united the journalistic profession. However, while in France the tendency is to make public the Mohammed cartoons, the Anglophone press has largely censored them. The New York Times had forbidden the publication of the front page of the next issue of Charlie Hebdo (14 January 2015), because “it was clearly designed to harm religious sensitivities�. Many news channels, such as CNN, have made the same choice. Hence, the question arises of the responsibility of media: should the publication of Mohammed cartoons be allowed by news outlets to pay tribute to


the victims of the terrorist attacks? The CNN Worldwide manager, Jeff Zucker, argued that the publication of those cartoons might endanger the security of their journalists all around the world. The White House is also concerned about the consequences of publication for their staff, the army, and diplomats. Contrastingly, Margaret Sullivan, a New York Times editor, declared on Twitter that “because of its significant news value, the Charlie Hebdo cover image should have been shown in NYT�. Generally, the pictures of the last Charlie Hebdo cover have been censored in most Muslim-majority states, Turkey being the only exception. There, a national media outlet has published

the new Mohammed cartoon. The journal Cumhuriyet reproduced, in a special supplement, the relevant cartoons, however, because freedom of expression is not ensured for journalists in Turkey, the Turkish newspaper exposes itself to risks. In France, the media coverage of the last few days has provoked debate. The High Audio Visual Board (CSA) had warned the media to act with the greatest of care to ensure the safety of their crews and not to disturb the investigation. However, by making public sensitive information, some national media has endangered the hostages of the Kosher supermarket. Indeed, the news channel BFM TV had disclosed the hiding

place of the hostages on 7 January 2015. As a result, contact between the media and the terrorists has hampered police action. Moreover, we could see that the handling of delicate information, such as the attempts against mosques in France, was entirely controlled by the government. The French government is very afraid of a rise of radicalism delivered by the media. The voting public is also afraid that a consequence of Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack will be a curtailment of freedom of expression. More than ever, we need journalists who are not afraid to tell the truth. Sabine Borny LLM, International and European Business Law

Special Edition | 7


Lots of Laughs Our society is reflected in our humour. Sometimes we feel the urgent need to laugh about serious issues, and it is rare that people unable to make fun of everything. Artists often try, but they know that their words may be misinterpreted. This acceptance is the result of one’s judgement, because, in the words of Aristotle, “laughter is particular to humanity”. Humour is a way to spread a message. Obviously, some people take exception, unable to separate from reality or symbolism. Laughing has always been a synonym of freedom: a person, especially in a modern society, can laugh about anything. What would humankind be without humour? On January 7, one of the symbolic values of the Republic was assaulted with extreme violence in the ostensible name of religion or, more correctly, in the name of a frantic vengeance meant to bring chaos in the country which originated Human Rights. France is a secular country, espousing the values of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. Though those individuals, guided by irrational conviction, use an extremist rhetoric of religion, their dogma is far removed from the principles extolled by the Koran. By targeting an editorial board, by executing journalists, policemen, and civilians, the terrorists are lashing out against popularly-held French values. This conception of freedom created the France of today, defended during the Revolution at the cost of many lives. France is a country where the press is free and where one is allowed to caricature religious icons. Caricature is a form of humour, and its place is unquestionable in a liberal State. Just as Monty Python did in Great Britain, the journalists of Charlie Hebdo were talking about religion with humour. They were drawing the Prophet, Jesus Christ, God, Abraham, Moses and others, to show that with an open mind one can laugh about anything. Religious institutions wield much political power even in secular states, and as such it is important to remove their serious character, and to take some time to laugh about them. French humour is unique, as is Anglophone humour. These differences help to bring the French together, because in the end we only desire one thing: to laugh and make laughter. This helps to put things into perspective, and everyone is free to shape humour as he wants, because that is freedom. The French people are fond of situation comedy combined with puns, which comes from the richness of the French language. And even though the French are famous for complaining all the time, comics are very successful in France. Often they spark controversy, playing at the very limits of freedom of expression. Of course that right is not indefinite, as can be seen with the example of the Shoah and Dieudonné, but then the Justice is there to frame that freedom of expression in order to maintain peace in a country. I do not know whether France is the only place where religious caricatures are allowed, but I think that the problem comes from the fact that not everyone is not as open-minded as Charlie Hebdo and their defenders. Terrorists, conservatives, religious fundamentalists, and others, believe that religion has a place in law, and hence they create even more divisions between human beings. Expression of humour is curtailed, and the role of liberal journalists is not respected. Worse, it is repressed with violence, with weapons and death. The Koran says that “whoso kills a soul, it shall be as if he had killed the mankind”. Who, between Charlie Hebdo and their murderers, were most respectful of Islam? If all believers could detach themselves from their respective religion and take some time to laugh, the world would be much better. Freedom would be guaranteed and we would not live in fear of the other because he believes in a different god. I will keep on laughing about everything with all other citizens, keep on living as a free man, keep on defending freedom as an essential right, and above all keep on walking in the memory of the innocent victims of terrorism. Jérémy Pinto Master in Communication ISIC (Université de Bordeaux Montaigne)

8 | Agora


“If all believers could detach themselves from their respective religion and take some time to laugh, the world would be much better. Freedom would be guaranteed and we would not live in fear of the other because he believes in a different god.�

Special Edition | 9


Editors: Fionn McGorry & Camille Maye Design: Kevin Threadgold Illustrations: Camille Maye Photos: Sebastien Amiet, lepipou, Petit_louis, Jeremy Pinto

agoratrinity@gmail.com


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.