Skip to main content

#JeSuisCharlie? No, I'm Really Not Charlie Hebdo: Here's Why


Some views must just be shared. Read below. 






Je suis Charlie?

Well, not quite. I really am not Charlie Hebdo.
Nothing - no cartoon, no book, no song – justifies the kind of shooting rampage that happened in Paris. As Hassen Chalghoumi, the imam of Drancy mosque in Paris says, “These are criminals, barbarians. They have sold their souls to hell.”

And he is not talking about the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo. He is talking about those who mowed them down and fled.

But the spontaneous outpouring of the #JeSuisCharlie hashtags obscures the thorny issue of free speech. While we want free speech to be absolute, in the real world, it is not. And even as we stand with Charlie Hebdo we cannot pretend not to understand that.

Today, as a tribute to Charlie Hebdo, outlets in India like Mint and NDTV have published a sort of collector’s edition of some of their cartoons. It’s a respectful gesture but it’s also somewhat misleading.

Assuming most readers in India are not regular consumers of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons, it gives them a more sanitized, PG-rated impression of their fare. As Jacob Canfield writes in the Hooded Utilitarian, “its cartoons often represent a certain virulently racist brand of French xenophobia. While they generously claim to ‘attack everyone equally’, the cartoons they publish are intentionally ‘anti-Islam’ and frequently sexist and homophobic.”

And that’s putting it mildly.

In reality, some of Charlie Hebdo’s most offensive cartoons would not be published in most parts of the world. Few media outlets would print a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad crouched on all fours with his genitals bared or show the Father, Son and Holy Ghost sodomizing each other. For that matter, most will balk at a cartoon like the one Onion put out showing a Lord Ganesha, Jesus, Moses, and Buddha all naked with erect phalluses having an orgy in the clouds? Now, that’s being equal opportunity offenders but that remains way outside the pale for most of the world. Anyway, in a freedom of expression absolute, it should not matter if you are an equal opportunity offender or a one-sided offender.

Let’s make no mistake - these cartoons are offensive to most people. And they are meant to be that way. They exist almost as a way to test freedom of expression to its limits rather than to make a 
satirical point. “This is the hardest part, the murder of the satirists in question does not prove that their satire was good,” writes Canfield. “Their satire was bad, and remains bad. Their satire was racist and remains racist.”

But that does not mean they deserved it. Not at all. The true mettle of freedom of expression is always tested against what we consider offensive or hateful or repugnant. That’s where the protection of freedom of expression actually means something. It’s easy to stand up for freedom of expression when we agree with the view point being depicted or do not care about it one way or the other. It gets far trickier when we are called upon to defend the right of someone to say what offends us deeply – whether it’s about our religion, our mothers, or our national leaders. The right to offend always butts up against the right to be offended.

In India, the latter routinely trumps the former. We prescribe to the thumb rule – when in doubt, ban. A publication putting out something like the cartoons Charlie Hebdo was infamous for would be 
picketed and shut down in double quick time. Our laws protecting “communal harmony” have far more teeth than our laws protecting freedom of expression. That’s why an NDTV or a Mint has to be careful about what images it selects from the Charlie Hebdo cartoons even as it wants to show solidarity.

As much as we might want to say “Charlie Hebdo tum aagey badho, hum tumharey saath hain” we cannot pretend that freedom of expression in India is the same as freedom of expression in France is the same as freedom of expression in the United States.

In an ideal world, the response to a cartoon that offends should be another cartoon. The response to a book that offends should be to not read it. The response to a film that offends could be a #BoycottPK social media campaign.

But the reality is there is no absolute right to free speech.

And yes, we forget that even France, which has become the embattled bastion of freedom of expression today, wears its own limits on its sleeve. Its staunch defense of freedom of expression did not prevent it from passing a ban on the niqab even though it was deliberately veiled as a ban on “clothing intended to conceal the face.” “Bans like these undermine the rights of women who choose to wear the veil and do little to protect anyone compelled to do so, just as laws in other countries forcing women to dress in a particular way undermine their rights,” says Izza Leghtas atHuman Rights Watch. Between April 2011 and February 2014, French law enforcement fined 594 women for wearing the niqab.

A Reuters report points out that many of the cartoonists in Charlie Hebdo got their start in another satirical magazine called Hara Kiri which proclaimed its aim to be “inane and nasty.” That magazine was banned in 1970 after printing a mock death notice for General Charles de Gaulle. Its 
reincarnation after the ban was as Charlie Hebdo.

Everyone will read the lesson they want into the tragedy in Paris. Some will see it as proof that Muslim immigrants can never be truly French because they do not get what former President Nicholas Sarkozy called an “old French tradition, satire.” Some will see it as evidence of France's xenophobic attitude towards immigrants coming home to roost. Salman Rushdie sees the attack as “the deadly mutation in the heart of Islam” and how “religious totalitarianism combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedom.” Of course, that “threat” is not news in many parts of the world. People being killed in Iraq and Syria by Isis or in Afghanistan by the Taliban have known that for a long long time. It just hits us harder when it hits us in Paris. Or Sydney. Or London.

And very ordinary Muslim immigrants minding their own business will probably bear the brunt of the backlash as Arabs and Sikhs in the US did post-9/11 for as Charbonnier, the editor of Charlie Hebdo once told Le Monde while defending his right to offend that “when activists need a pretext to justify 
their violence they will find it.”

But that argument offers us no answers to the knotty question of freedom of expression, an idea to which we all think we subscribe. Those JeSuisCharlie profile pictures on Facebook, perfect little squares all of them, create an image of geometric uniformity as if we subscribe to that right in equal measure. But if anything this tragedy forces us to admit that when it comes to what constitutes freedom of expression, most of us are not even close to being on the same page.

I think of myself as a staunch supporter of freedom of expression but I realize the disquieting truth that I could never publish some of the cartoons Charlie Hebdo did. It would go against every fiber of my being. But I will defend their right to exist and condemn what happened to them with every fiber of my being as well. But I just cannot say #IAmCharlieHebdo.





-Sandip Roy. Alternet

Comments

  1. I just thank God there was no outbreak in the North like they did during the Denmark cartoon...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Exactly my view point as well.
    You do not murder others' beliefs on the alter of freedom of speech. They should have been called to order a long time ago.
    This is not saying the killings were appropriate reaction, though.

    -F

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *freedom of expression.
      -F

      Delete
  3. There truly is no freedom of expression anywhere, what the constitution says regardless.

    No matter what anyone says against your religion as far as you know the truth, pray for them to come to the same understanding of the truth. Whats the point of killing them?

    This is the part i don't understand. People that fight and kill because someone doesn't believe the in their God or doesn't get what all the fuss is about, aren't they supposed to be winning them over, doesn't violence defeat that purpose?

    These satirists though, can't they leave religion alone and focus on other things like politics, education, entertainment, etc. Cos people will always take offence and extremists will always go crazy on them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "...these cartoons are offensive to most people. And they are meant to be that way. They exist almost as a way to test freedom of expression to its limits rather than to make a satirical point..."

    It's barbaric resorting to violence when one's patience has been tested. However, people need to be civil in their freedom.

    #Je ne suis pas Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes! I totally agree with the writer. I listened to an interview on CNN a while back which bothers on the points raised above. The guy interviewed said the publishers at Charlie Hebdo were legally right (rights to freedom of speech) but morally wrong. Of course we know the age long debate of the thin line between morality and the law..

    In line with recent event, we must also address (maybe not now so as not to justify in any way the murder at Charlie Hebdo) the issue of using the right to freedom of speech to distort the right to freedom of religion. Most of those cartoonist are atheist but they must also respect other religions by not testing "freedom of expression to it's limit" with those offensive cartoons.

    We cannot fight for God. Terrorism is unjustifiable....... but we must also admit that if someone insults Obi's father he may do nothing but if same happens to Ada's father she may fight you.

    If some magazine was banned after printing a mock death notice for General Charles de Gaulle then we can say that France understands that freedom of speech should not be stretched to it's limit.

    If I may borrow from Memphis " Je ne suis pas Charlie". J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot on J!
      I couldn't have said it any better...



      Kabuoy

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Turia Pitt Suffered 65% Burns But Loved Conquered All...

Amazing Story Shared by Dr. Ben Carson on Facebook, i thought it is inspiring and i decided to share;

The Australian ex-model Turia Pitt suffered burns to 65 per cent of her body, lost her fingers and thumb on her right hand and spent five months in hospital after she was trapped by a grassfire in a 100 kilometre ultra-marathon in the Kimberley. Her boyfriend decided to quit his job to care for her recovery. 
Days ago, in an interview for CNN they asked him:
"Did you at any moment think about leaving her and hiring someone to take care of her and moving on with your life?"

His reply touched the world:

"I married her soul, her character, and she's the only woman that will continue to fulfill my dreams."

***
This made me very reflective. I just wonder; if the person you love today encounters an incident or accident that transforms who they are physically, it could be amputation, it could be paralysis, it could be severe burns that scald their flesh beyond recognition, w…

#WriteRight. VIVIAN: MY FIRST SEX EXPERIENCE WITH MY BOYFRIEND

He was my coursemate, crush, then my boyfriend.... he was super
intelligent, smart, tall, dark and handsome. Believe me he got
swag, but he didn't seem to notice me. (I'm a nerd but a sassy one
if I say so myself).  So oneday I decided to take it to another level..
After listening to a song "IF YOU LOVE SOMEBODY TELL THEM THAT YOU
LOVE THEM and watching the season film of The Secret Life of
American Teenagers. ..when Amy Jeugerns mum told her "you are only
young once". LOL that part got me.
Hope you know what i mean?

Though I'm okay with chemistry class I approached him to coach me for
the Quiz that was coming up, we found out that we had this
great chemistry between us.. hehehe both the covalent and
electrovalent bonds....

So one thing led to another till one unusual Saturday. I invited
him to my house and he came. The guy got swag, he even came
with a packet of durex condom.
We talked for a while and and and and and and
Kai!
See how you are serious dey read this story....!
My…

...

Good morning people! 
Just checking in to sign the register. Lol. It's been a very busy week and it looks like it might be an even busier weekend. I was hoping to get some writing done when I got to the airport yesterday but I even almost missed my flight. It was hopeless trying to do any work on the plane as it was bumpy af, and this toddler behind me wouldn't stop screaming in piercing shrieks like he was being exorcised. 
I got into town pretty late and needed to keep an appointment ASAP. I'm heading out right now and it's going to be a long day, but thought I should drop this first. 
Have a splendid day. Im'ma be back soon.

One More Post...

THE ‘NEW’ SIDE CHICK: I WAS HER

A side chick is commonly known as a mistress or a woman that’s romantically involved with a man who is in a committed relationship.  However after doing some reflecting, I realize that’s not the only type of side chick.  I want to discuss “the new side chick”–a woman who decides to stay by a man’s side after he has expressed his lack of relationship intentions with her through his words or actions.  So many women have made this mistake at least once in their lifetime, and unfortunately I’ve done the same thing. I like to think of the new side chick as an appetizer.  You’re there just to satisfy the immediate appetite of the man, but as soon as that mouth-watering entrée comes out to the table, you will get pushed to the side, literally.  Why?  Because that entrée is what he really wanted; he went to the restaurant to order steak, not hot wings.  You were just a placeholder, fling, temporary commitment, or  maybe even just a “good ol time” until what he really wanted was presented to hi…

Shhhhhhh....

I'm in an amebo mood tonight. Don't ask me, I honestly don't know why. Also I'd like to share too but I'd do that anonymously in the comment section. Tonight I want to talk about secrets. It's ok, we can all be anonymous. 
Is it true that EVERYBODY has a secret? 
Is there anyone here who doesn't have a secret? I'd really like to know; You're a completely open book and there's not ONE thing about you that you wouldn't mind other people knowing about? Please raise your hands up. 
And for the rest of us, what's something about you that no one knows, or very few people know? Who's got a dark secret here, or a weird one, or a funny one even? I really don't mean to be invasive but I don't want to be the only one sharing, plus I think hearing other people's secrets is quite fun, don't you think?

Let's Be Random Together! (Open Keypad).

Hey guys, a while back blog reader F said something about creating an Open Keypad post, where you can write whatever you want in the comment section. I thought it was a fun idea!
So who is interested? Comment on anything you feel like, ask me or anyone a question, talk about how your day went, your job, your interests, tell us something about you that we don't know, share a testimony with us, rant about anything you feel like, talk about your crush/boo/spouse/relationship/marriage, challenges you're facing, ANYTHING AT ALL! 
I'll only make one request; that we stay civil. 

(F it was you who made this suggestion, right? I'm not too sure and I can't even remember the post the comment was made on). 
BTW please Ejoeccome out come out, wherever you are!

Question of The Day.

TTB readers doesn't this tweet below remind you of something?
That mail that someone sent me a few weeks back. 
But why on earth should a man sleep with his son's fiancé? But what am I saying, some men even sleep with their daughters...

Oh well, I'm throwing the question to you. What has happened in your life that you never saw coming, you never hesperred it, you never imagined could happen, you never imagined could happen to you? 
It could be good, it could be bad, it could be ugly. Do tell!
And it can be more than one. Let me tell you a few. 
-owning a blog -week long dry fast at Prayer City (I never hesperred it).  -staying in an (emotionally) abusive relationship.
The others require anonymity. LOL. Now over to you.

Adventures, Fun, Friendship & Laughter at the TTB Hangout (Lekki Conservation Center).

Nicole to Clare: mummy lets go. I want to climb that ropy thing!

Isn't Clare beautiful?!

Uyi et moi. Clowning. 

Mother & child. 


Scary af! Trish on the ramp. The chica loves the outdoors so much, she was like a kid in a candy store. She and Uyi took this walk twice! More power to them, you can't pay me to do this a second time.


Uyi & Tiwa