On Wednesday morning, the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo was attacked by three masked gunmen, armed with kalashnikovs, who stormed the building and killed ten of its staff and two police officers. The gunmen are currently understood to be Muslim extremists. This attack came minutes after the paper tweeted this drawing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi.
(“Best wishes, by the way.” Baghdadi: “And especially good health!”)
An armed attack on a newspaper is shocking, but it is not even the first time Hebdo has been the subject of terrorist attacks. Gawker has a good summary of past controversies and attacks involving Hebdo. Most famously, the magazine’s offices were firebombed in 2011, after they printed an issue depicting the Prophet Muhammad on the cover.
In the face of such an obvious attack on free speech, voicing anything except grief-stricken support is seen by many as disrespectful. Tom Spurgeon at The Comics Reporter, one of the first American comics sources to thoroughly cover the attack, quickly tweeted this:
When faced with a terrorist attack against a satirical newspaper, the appropriate response seems obvious. Don’t let the victims be silenced. Spread their work as far as it can possibly go. Laugh in the face of those savage murderers who don’t understand satire.
In this case, it is the wrong response.
Here’s what’s difficult to parse in the face of tragedy: yes, Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical newspaper. Its staff is white. (Update:Charlie Hebdo’s staff it not all white. See note below.) 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.
Here, for context, are some of the cartoons they recently published.
(Yes, that last one depicts Boko Haram sex slaves as welfare queens.)
These are, by even the most generous assessment, incredibly racist cartoons. Hebdo’s goal is to provoke, and these cartoons make it very clear who the white editorial staff was interested in provoking: France’s incredibly marginalized, often attacked, Muslim immigrant community.
Even in a fresh-off-the-press, glowing BBC profile of Charb, Hebdo’s murdered editor, he comes across as a racist asshole.
Charb had strongly defended Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad.
“Muhammad isn’t sacred to me,” he told the Associated Press in 2012, after the magazine’s offices had been fire-bombed.
“I don’t blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law. I don’t live under Koranic law.”
Now, I understand that calling someone a ‘racist asshole’ after their murder is a callous thing to do, and I don’t do it lightly. This isn’t ambiguous, though: the editorial staff of Hebdo consistently aimed to provoke Muslims. They ascribe to the same edgy-white-guy mentality that many American cartoonists do: nothing is sacred, sacred targets are funnier, lighten up, criticism is censorship. And just like American cartoonists, they and their supporters are wrong. White men punching down is not a recipe for good satire, and needs to be called out. People getting upset does not prove that the satire was good. And, this is the hardest part, the murder of the satirists in question does not prove that their satire was good. Their satire was bad, and remains bad. Their satire was racist, and remains racist.
The response to the attacks by hack cartoonists the world over has been swift. While many are able to keep pretty benign:
Several of the cartoons sweeping Twitter stooped to drawing hook-nosed Muslim caricatures, reminiscent of Hebdo’s house style.
Perhaps most offensively, this Shaw cartoon (incorrectly attributed to Robert Mankoff) from a few years back swept Twitter, paired with the hashtag #CharlieHebdo:
Political correctness did not kill twelve people at the Charlie Hebdo offices. To talk about the attack as an attack by “political correctness” is the most disgusting, self-serving martyr bullshit I can imagine. To invoke this (bad) Shaw cartoon in relation to the Hebdo murders is to assert that cartoons should never be criticized. To invoke this garbage cartoon is to assert that white, male cartoonists should never have to hear any complaints when they gleefully attack marginalized groups.
Changing your twitter avatar to a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad is a racist thing to do, even in the face of a terrorist attack. The attitude that Muslims need to be ‘punished’ is xenophobic and distressing. The statement, “JE SUIS CHARLIE” works to erase and ignore the magazine’s history of xenophobia, racism, and homophobia. For us to truly honor the victims of a terrorist attack on free speech, we must not spread hateful racism blithely, and we should not take pride in extreme attacks on oppressed and marginalized peoples.
A call “TO ARMS”
is gross and inappropriate. To simplify the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices as “Good, Valiant Westerners vs. Evil, Savage Muslims” is not only racist, it’s dangerously overstated. Cartoonists (especially political cartoonists) generally reinforce the status quo, and they tend to be white men. Calling fellow cartoonists TO ARMS is calling other white men to arms against already marginalized people. The inevitable backlash against Muslims has begun in earnest.
This is the worst.
The fact that twelve people are dead over cartoons is hateful, and I can only pray that their attackers are brought to justice. Free speech is an important part of our society, but, it should always go without saying, free speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Criticism IS speech – to honor “free speech martyrs” by shouting down any criticism of their work is both ironic and depressing.
In summary:
Nobody should have been killed over those cartoons.
Fuck those cartoons.
________
Update by Noah: Jacob initially stated that Charlie Hebdo’s “staff is white”. In fact, CH did have non-white staffers, including copy editor Mustapha Orrad, who was murdered by the terrorists, and journalist Zineb El Rhazoui. Jacob said that his point was that Charlie Hebdo’s chief editor was white, and that “The controversial cartoonists being mourned as free-speech martyrs are all white men.”
For all HU posts on Satire and Charlie Hebdo click here.
I would also add that freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility for that speech either.
Yes…though obviously being responsible for you speech doesn’t mean in any way that you deserve to be violently attacked for it.
A well-written and intelligent response to a stupid, evil situation. Those cartoons were drawn to increase circulation and make money. They were bait and the bait was taken, with horrific results. The resultant repugnance and anger of civilized people around the world is precisely what the terrorists desire more than anything else … they too are building circulation and making money …
Yes. I think it’s not exactly right to say that the terrorists don’t want people to draw cartoons like this. Radical Islamic groups depend on anti-Islamic sentiment to gin up outrage and support, just as right-wing hate groups depend on atrocities like this one to justify rhetoric/actions against all Muslims. Terrorist violence is a giant, festering boon to those who hate on both sides.
i am not for #jesuischarlie. i think they deserved it. muslims don’t go around making offensive drawings of any other religion and then post it to the world. they basically asked for an early gave. people who follow any religion other bar Islam don’t realise how disrespectful it is to draw something that is forbidden in their religion.
Noah Burgly, that’s the exact opposite of what I’m arguing in this piece. No drawing is worth murdering someone over, as offensive as it is.
My impression of the Shaw cartoon was that it was making the point (or claim) that it would be impossible for a political cartoon to be completely universally inoffensive.
I assume Noah will delete “noah burgly’s” shitty comment.
I’m not sure whether I agree with Jacob’s article. The anti-Islam rhetoric of people like Christopher Hitchens, Martin Amis, and Sam Harris becomes a problem when they advocate for things like invading Iraq, discriminating against British Muslims, continuing the Israeli occupation, and bombing Gaza. But for a non-Muslim to aggressively mock Islam seems okay to me, and these horrifying murders kind of make me want to join in. I don’t see what’s racist about changing your profile picture to a drawing of Muhammad or how Charb comes across as a racist asshole in that quote. Admittedly, I don’t understand the cartoons because I don’t speak French.
Yeah; I really disagree strongly that they “deserved it”. Lots of Muslims have condemned the killing too; it’s not like Islam as a whole sees murder for cartoonists as a good idea. It’s a small group of radical assholes, who thrive on death and hate, and make the world worse for everyone, not least for Muslims.
HU, a venue that promotes its own Hate Week, is hosting one of the few civilized and genuinely intelligent discussions of this atrocity that I’ve read, at least. Congrats, Noah.
We must learn to cultivate our own gardens and respect the interior worlds of other humans, no matter how silly or idiotic we think they are. And above all, eschew — and expose — the deliberate provocations of those who profit from hate.
I thought about deleting burgly’s comment…but seemed weird since we’re talking about free speech here. So I’ll leave it for now at least.
Actually, Mr. Burgly, it might surprise you to learn that Muslims do not hold monolithic beliefs.
What Muslims Really Believe About Cartoons of Muhammad
by no means was I trying to imply that they got what they deserved or that the responsible action was to kill the journalists. But I also strongly feel that too many people use the excuse that it is “freedom of speech” and they can say whatever they want and there is no consequence. Unfortunately and horrifically in this case the consequence was markedly extreme. I certainly agree with the poster’s point that the mark of good satire is not that you be executed for it, however, you do need to be prepared for the fall out of putting out purposefully inflammatory perspectives.
Jacob — You certainly beat the white guy/racist horse to death in your essay, but in doing so you display ignorance of exactly what constitutes a “white” guy.
According to anthropologists, the US Census Bureau, and others, most Southwest Asia (i.e., “Middle East”) peoples are classified as “white” as well. In fact, many Persians are proud of that fact, and quick to point out that they are Aryans (yeah, THOSE Aryans) — hence their country’s name “Iran,” which literally means “Land of Aryans.” So are others in the region that was once the Persian Empire.
Now that’s not to say there was no racist underpinnings to some of Charlie Hebdo’s material. It just means that your repeated pejorative usage of the term “white” is technically incorrect.
By the way, murder is not “criticism” of free speech. It’s murder.
Russ: are you serious?
Thanks for debate, Jacob, I’m glad we’re having this discussion, even though 1/ I’m not sure what you’re saying, and 2/ I think I disagree.
I am French, and of course, a white male. I am perfectly open to the notion that I may be talking from a position of privilege, and I wish your article had showed me more clearly in what way.
Basically, I do feel that “nothing’s sacred”, or rather that “nothing sacred can be made less so with a joke”. Is that racist because culturally insensitive ? Because “Enlightenment-centric” or something ?
Also, I fail to see what’s racist in most pictures. Especially the two first. The third one is obviously meant as pure provocation, the 4th one says “Muhammad overwhelmed by extremists. ‘It’s not easy being loved by idiots!'” (if it’s not clear enough, the French expression means ‘some who love me are idiots’, not ‘all who love me’). The series of cartoons is more problematic, I admit, though I found the Bardot joke hilarious. The last one may be in poor taste, but it’s absurdist and certainly not an attack on… anybody (not even Boko Haram, who I’d expect to be fair game).
I guess what I mean is that some of these drawing can be seen as racist in their depiction of arab or middle-eastern people because of their aesthetic short-hand (turbans and scimitars and the like). But if you think that making fun of the Prophet is racist because devout Muslims can feel hurt by it, I think I disagree.
As an aside, Charlie Hebdo is not all white, Islam is not their favourite target, and their biggest enemy is the far right : https://charliehebdo.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/affiche-lepen.jpg
(the text reads “Le Pen, the candidate that suits you.”)
So, Jordan, I think I still kind of disagree with that. People really shouldn’t have to be, and can’t be, prepared for violent thugs responding to their cartoons with terrorist violence.
Russ, I think there is a common confusion about Muslims and race. Race isn’t real; it’s a social category, not a biological fact. “Race” can be defined in lots of ways, not just by skin color or ethnic background. Generally it’s defined by a range of things; Jews, when they’re defined as an ethnic group, are defined through both hereditary background and religion, for example.
Since 9/11, the U.S. and Europe have moved towards defining Muslim as a racial group in a lot of ways. So saying, “this isn’t racism because some Islamic people are white by some definitions” — it’s nonsensical. It doesn’t matter whether some people have classified Iranians as white for some purposes in the past, because racism isn’t based on scientific classifications. It’s based on defining certain groups as a certain race, and then caricaturing and discriminating against them.
Okay? In addition, Jacob’s background is Iranian, so lecturing him on the correct racial classification of Iranians is both condescending and really not helpful.
Thank you for writing this, Jacob. I knew nothing about Charlie Hebdo before today, but even while shocked and upset by the coverage, felt something was off. I’m saddened for the editors and their families, but ultimately grieved over the state of enertainment-news, and the vicious idiocy of biased satire.
Noah, I think that in an ideal, utopian world, people would not have to fear violence for purposefully offensive behavior. But in an ideal, utopian world, people wouldn’t be purposefully offensive. Freedom of speech allows for us to be purposefully offensive in our communication, and unfortunately, freedom of speech has often resulted in what we would consider unjustified violent reaction.
Again, not excusing the behavior. It is deplorable. But do you feel that Charlie Hebdo was naive enough to believe that they could continuously mock a religion whose extremist factions are known for extreme violence with no repercussions? Did they honestly not consider the threat of death or violence when they published the cartoons?
I know it may sound like I am defending the aggressors, or saying that the cartoonists were asking for it. I am not. But if I were in their place, I would seriously consider whether or not my actions could somehow result in the violence that ended up taking place. And then decide from there. That’s being responsible. It isn’t as if they were reporting accurate news or pushing for social change in their satire and their journalistic integrity was at stake.
Here’s a great supplemental post.
http://avantblargh.tumblr.com/post/107422672105
My understanding is that there was an awareness by them and the authorities that they might be targeted.
They presumably made the decision that they did not want to be silenced by terrorist shitheads. I would say that that’s brave and admirable. At the same time, the bravery was in defense of racism, and was also in part probably inspired (as Mahendra says) by the fact that controversy sells. So…it’s a complicated issue, but I would suspect that yes, they did feel their journalistic integrity was at stake.
I have to admit my first thought was that this attack would add fuel the fire that the racist European far-right is. A sad and doubly ironic thing in that the paper attacked was leftist (if perhaps also racist) and in that the far-right isn’t generally very fond of freedom of speech or of the press.
Brilliantly done, Jacob — to employ parody to defend freedom of speech at a moment like this. Granted, your spoof, slyly adopting the voice a of hand-wringing leftist instantly jumping to condemn the victims of a terrorist attack for inappropriate or insensitive speech goes a little over the top: would even the most mealy-mouthed thought-police officer find “The prophet isn’t sacred to me… I don’t blame Muslims for not laughing at the jokes” racist assholery? Or the cartoon of the prophet bemoaning being loved by idiots, or “love is stronger than hate…” “incredibly racist”? LOL. Perhaps not, but never mind, you’re mostly right on the mark. And of course, you provide a tip-off by using vicious hate speech against the victims (referring to them as “white” and “white guys”). Mind you, good satire is always dangerous. Some on the Right could think you meant it, and use quotes out of context to caricature the Left… while some on the Left (perhaps Mr. Burgly is an example), could take it too seriously to the extent of appluding the attacks! But since most of the comments above skilfully adapt your droll tone, it seems you’ve gauged your audience perfectly
I emotionally see where Jordan is coming from, without agreeing. I understand the desire to protect journalists from harm, and how that morphs into a frustration when they can’t protect themselves (and relatedly, frustration that they’ve dedicated their lives to spawning racist propaganda.) No one asks for this, no one deserves this… Jacob said it perfectly that these are dumb cartoons no one should have died for. Still, I resonate with the frustration that they ‘should’ have taken better care of themselves… and taken better care of the world by extension, by being less hateful cartoonists and journalists.
I don’t think there’s really a ‘should’ in this situation though. Perceptive journalists will understand when they are threatening and when they are being threatened… naive journalists will not. Its tragic human behavior, and ultimately cause and effect.
I’m afraid you’re very mistaken. Charlie Hebdo was anything but racist, they just loved to poke disrespect at anything and anyone. Just google charliehebdo for images and you’ll literally see what I mean. Being satirical cartoonist, they got a rise from irritating those that were most provoked by their drawing. In the words of French tweeter: “Charlie Hebdo makes fun of Muhammad. [It’s] in the press. Muslims complain. [It’s] in the press. Explosion of sales. Classic”. Just basically what msm does everyday, and what satirical cartoonist are paid to do. To their credit, Charlie Hebdo also published a non humorous biography of Mohammed the prophet, so that non-muslims can know more about the man and his works. So no, they’re not racist. Or sadly, should we say, they weren’t. Now they’re dead.
I can see that. With me not being a journalist, I don’t know how far I would have been willing to push the satire, especially with a knowledge of possible violent reaction. In some ways I understand the bravery of standing up for what you want to do and not being cowed by your opposition, but I still feel that bravery becomes recklessness at some point if it isn’t tempered with some caution.
It IS a complicated issue. If you are talking integrity, how does one justify their racist behavior? Kind of an oxymoron…a racist with integrity.
on the bright side, I think the conversations going on here are great, so kudos to you for publishing this.
Well, that link you shared, Jacob, confirms my impression that a lot of the images can only be understood by those who follow the French news.
Christiane Taubira with a monkey’s body is an attack on the Front National pretensions that it’s not a racist party, the “2 Moms, 1 sextoy” is about religion (here catholicism) uniting that same FN and the supposedly center-right UMP against gay marriage… “The Qu’ran is shit, it doesn’t stop bullet.” is about muslim-on-muslim violence, and the “Quenelle” one I won’t even try to explain, but it’s a “fuck you” gesture towards antisemites.
The most frustrating for me is that I don’t even like Charlie Hebdo. I often find their humour more tasteless than funny. I like even less Hara Kiri, the cult counter-culture magazine which was banned by the De Gaulle regime and reborn as Charlie Hebdo. But the authors of these accusations seem either not to get the jokes, or to think that it’s in such bad taste that it makes you question freedom of expression. Which is sort of baffling.
Ah, S. Larea, your amusing impersonation of a naively cynical free speech idealist realist is spot on. The self-congatulatory denunciation of self-congratulation; the “you’re another” reverse racism canard, deftly clinging to identity politics while claiming they’re irrelevant; the sneering reference to “thought-police” as you duplicitously suggest that Jacob’s dangerous post has led some to applaud the attacks; it’s all there, in so, so clever dollops. Superb trolling!
Seriously, could you cut the condescending bullshit? Folks are for the most part here having a civil discussion. You’re welcome to join us, if you can stop patting yourself on the back for a second.
From The Financial Times:
“A year later, a group called the Syrian Association for Liberty filed a legal complaint, accusing Charlie Hebdo of provoking racial and religious hatred after it published a series of cartoons mocking Mohammed. The magazine coincided with another global crisis over the release of a low-budget US film that vilified Islam. Issues of the magazine quickly sold out.
Then, in January 2013, Charlie Hebdo published a 65-page comic biography of Mohammed, which Mr Charbonnier billed as a way to educate people about a religion which he, himself, had not known well enough.
“We have put into pictures the life of Mohammed as it is recounted by Muslim chroniclers. Without added humour. If the form seems to some blasphemous, the foundation is perfectly halal. Up to you to decide,” he wrote in a note on the back page.
Outraged members of the French Muslim community were not convinced and demanded that the government condemn the book.”
Michael— I don’t know enough about this biography to decide whether it was truly meant to be reconciliatory or fair. Considering Charbonnier’s tone in the above quote, it seems like he was just attacking from another angle, while making it more complicated to outright criticize his ‘adding fuel to the fire.’
Dismissiveness and aloofness are pretty horrifying ways to respond to tragedy. They’re the mark of faux intellectualism and… very bad satire! I don’t think you considered anything Jacob wrote above, or has been discussed here.
Another point of view on the matter : http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7507729/the-satirical-cartoon-cover-that-defines-charlie-hebdo
“Part of Charlie Hebdo’s point was that respecting these taboos strengthens their censorial power.”
Contra some of the nonsense being mouthed today by fools on Twitter, these weren’t some kind of Andrew Dice Clay acts looking for ever-more vulnerable minorities to kick; Cabu, for instance, is most famous for creating the provincial, typical-French character Mon Boeuf, who he mocks for being crude and bigoted toward minorities. My French father-in-law, whose Gaullist-flavored politics were certainly satirized by Cabu over the years, said that today felt like being stabbed in the heart.
– Matt Welch
How does:
“Charb had strongly defended Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad.
“Muhammad isn’t sacred to me,” he told the Associated Press in 2012, after the magazine’s offices had been fire-bombed.
“I don’t blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law. I don’t live under Koranic law.””
..supposed to make that person come across as a racist asshole? Criticizing Mohammed is racist? Is criticizing the pope racist? What about evangelicals or atheists?
No. While several of those cartoons are horribly racist and are worthy of criticism, I think you are dangerously on the edge of acting like figures like Mohammed should not be criticized.
Just as shitty cartoons should be criticized, shitty ideologies and religious leaders should be criticized.
Josselin– I vaguely consider myself to be a Vox fan, but I think this article misses the mark somewhat. For one, this imagery is already very cliché, and is a pretty deliberate take off of an Art Spiegelman cover for The New Yorker (which may not have even been the first use of this imagery.) They’re parodying a cliché that shows that two enemies can be dramatically reconciled, not suggesting that they can be. On another level, I think that cover IS stating how the Charlie Hebdo and the extremists are locked in a kind of romance– a romance of sensationalistic news cycles. The smoldering office in the background shows that they’re kind of dismissing their own misfortune, even acknowledging their own complicity in it. It sure is a ballsy cover, and rather self-aware, but I’d say its self-destructive too.
TTR, I think it’s tricky because, as I said earlier, Islamic identity is in the process of being reified and racialized. The attacks on Mohammad above use racist caricature to make their point. The line between making fun of the religion and racist attacks on Muslims can be pretty thin.
I don’t know that I’d call the editors comments racist either…Jacob, could you expand on why you feel what he said is racist?
It’s racist because he’s equating a desire for respect on the part of Muslims to Muslims taking over the country and imposing “koranic law.” So, the only time he would consider the feelings of an oppressed minority is if they literally took over and imposed their evil laws on him.
By itself that comment would be racist, but in the context of the things Hebdo published, it is extremely racist.
Okay, okay, if my satire was leaden & condescending, I apologize. But Jacob’s piece truly angered me. I spent the day feeling, like the French father-in-law referenced above, devastated by the murders of Cabu and Wolinski, who have created beautiful and important work over the past five decades (I’m not so familiar with the younger cartoonists). As several other responders have pointed out, Canfield’s understanding of French culture and cartooning seems pretty limited and he’s propagating a very biased view of what Charlie Hebdo represents. I honestly question the impulse behind Jacob’s lumping together of all of those cartoons as “incredibly racist,” most of which clearly targeted at only the evils of Islamist bullying, not the religion or the “race.” Besides, even if some of them are offensive, today we are reminded that there are things so much worse than offensiveness — even offensiveness that includes racist caricature — that they make offensiveness seem noble by comparison. No, no one here has literally applauded the attacks. But I get the feeling that Jacob and others are eager to make sense of this crime against humanity in a way that lets them return to their comfortable thought patterns of finding fault (on a gut level) only with white, European culture. I dislike resorting to accusations of “reverse racism.” I understand perfectly well that it doesn’t exist on a systemic level, but the reflexive need to be comfortably offended by a bunch of old white guys rather than the POC’s that gunned them down is what I read in this post and some of the comments. (By the way, there was a prominent Arab-French cartoonist on the Charlie Hebdo staff as well) I appreciate Noah’s moderation of his comments aimed at me, and the sincere invitation to join the conversation. But if you could think better of calling me an asshole for some lame trolling, shouldn’t Jacob reconsider calling a satirical cartoonist who was gunned down today a “racist asshole?”
They do Noah Burgly..remember the innocent Armenians..the worst genocide ever..they lived in Turkey for centuries making the greatest contributions to the Ottoman empire and Christendom was there first and the Armenian churches were plastered over, theirBibles burned and women and children bludgeoned for being Christians and highly educated. They have no country ..the men were murdered..outnumbered 10 to 1 and most were unarmed. This cannot even be discussed without denial. The Middle Eastern countries have the same horrific past as most countries and often against each other.
Thanks Jacob. I think it’s at least a little tricky because, obviously, they were actually facing threats from individuals who wanted to impose some twisted version of Koranic law. But his comments do seem to lump those few in with the entire community, as you say.
S. Larea, thanks for your thoughts.
This is a flawed analysis given in the cause of messed up priorities. 12 people are dead over drawings, I’d say the gunmen were “punching down”. But let’s spend our attention on how the drawings were bad, and their capacity to hurt people’s feelings? Incidentally I see that one supposedly racist cartoon has “Islamic Extremism” printed on the caricatured guy, and somehow according to this piece this is supposed to be problematic and akin stereotyping all Muslims. Are you serious?
The point missed is “hack cartoonists” are all standing against violence as a tool to suppress speech, no matter how offensive. This is not a commentary on the offensive speech, this is not a declaration that even mere criticism of offensive speech is unacceptable. It is a commentary that the speakers should be able to say it without force acting as a threat against it. There is no “but” that comes after. I say this as a Christian, which I’m aware that publication also has absolutely no deference for.
Here the token words are spoken about how the murders are wrong and then they are undermined with chatter about how offensive speech was inviting it, as though the real tragedy is that the murdered cartoonists weren’t more tactful and respectful. But if you don’t back free speech and freedom of the press even when it comes to speech that greatly offends your sensibilities (or those of ones you sympathize with), then you don’t really believe in it. If a principle is put aside when put to the test, it’s not a principle.
To wit, this piece is spot on. The #1 consideration here isn’t the feelings of any group that you claim to know about, it’s about drawling a line against the gun as a veto. You don’t have to feel that anything goes and that satire is above all reproach to see the threat this kind of thing poses to all of as, as Mr. Douthat demonstrates. I’ll quote a big part of it, but the whole thing is worth the time.
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we-need/?_r=0
“And similarly, in a cultural and political vacuum, it would be okay to think that some of images (anti-Islamic and otherwise) that Charlie Hebdo regularly published, chosen entirely for their shock value, contributed little enough to public discussion that the world would not suffer from their absence.”
“But we are not in a vacuum. We are in a situation where my third point applies, because the kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more. Again, liberalism doesn’t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it’s okay to prefer a society where offense and outrage for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.”
“In this sense, many of the Western voices that have criticized the editors of Hebdo have had things exactly backward: Whether it’s the Obama White House or Time Magazine in the past or the Financial Times and (God help us) the Catholic League today, they’ve criticized the paper for provoking violence by being needlessly offensive and “inflammatory” (Jay Carney’s phrase), when the reality is that it’s precisely the violence that justifies the inflammatory content. In a different context, a context where the cartoons and other provocations only provoked angry press releases and furious blog comments, I might sympathize with the FT’s Tony Barber when he writes that publications like Hebdo “purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.” (If all you have to fear is a religious group’s fax machine, what you’re doing might not be as truth-to-power-ish as you think.) But if publishing something might get you slaughtered and you publish it anyway, by definition you are striking a blow for freedom, and that’s precisely the context when you need your fellow citizens to set aside their squeamishness and rise to your defense.”
Typical. 12 murders are carried out by a group of delusional psychos and your response is “but how are white men responsible this time?”
Fucking white knight press. Wake up.
Jacob,
I’m sorry, this is not your finest work. It just flails at its target with the biggest ideological words you can muster: “incredibly racist”; “white men punching down”; “assholes” “attacking marginalized groups.” But mainly you employ a spirit of argument that tries to capture everything in its accusatory grasp, producing an argument that ignores all particulars and distinctions (see Noah’s last note, e.g.), and conflating all sorts of people, ideas, politics, and groups.
Perhaps this is because you don’t really have an opponent whose words or images you can present. You say you’re arguing against the idea that “white, male cartoonists should never have to hear any complaints when they gleefully attack marginalized groups.” But who, in this context, is saying that — or has ever said that? Recent statements of “solidarity” are in the face of murder and terrorism, not the right to call out distasteful stuff. To ignore that is to conflate criticism with murder — to pretend that we’re talking about one thing, when we’re really talking about another.
And you conflate and elide distinctions just as much in the opposite direction, allowing you to turn attacks on one idea into attacks on all ideas, into attacks on all people who hold them — and finally into attacks on a “race.”
Take, for example, your over-the-top reaction to the cartoon with a “call to arms,” visually marshaling a weapon made of pens and pencils. You take this metaphorical martial langauge — which is EXPLICITLY a rejection of weapons and violence in favor of further words and expression, a call to meet violence with renewed speech — and turn it into a racist attacks on marginalized people (an actual incitement to actual attacks).
See how that series of silent equations works? A statement against violence becomes a statement that endorses violence (and therefore, why not a statement met with violence?). Or to take the equations further (as you do): a statement against terrorism = a statement against Islam = a statement against Muslims = a statement that all Muslims must be punished = a statement in support of racism.
I think this is why so many of the comments here have shifted towards satire and dismissal, themselves. It’s because you — even if you were speaking from the heart — do not seem to be taking the particulars of the case, of your argument, of the politics, and even of these cartoons and cartoonists seriously.
Some have noted all the things you have missed, even in the examples and quotes you provided. I’ll add one more. The first cover you provide was published just days after their offices were bombed in 2011. They met deadly force and terror with … a picture — a provocative picture of the terrorist and the cartoonist kissing amid the rubble. “Love [is] stronger than hate,” it says. And while I don’t think they mean it, the image and the sentiment are perhaps the strongest of the bunch — and given the context (and context matters) — show the most bravery.
Racist? Homophobic? Hateful? In this case again, wrong all all counts, and it seems your willingness to only see those things is downright perplexing.
Peter
I’m not losing sleep over dead racists. End of. I feel more sympathy for the dead Muslim officer than I do for anyone else in that building.
It’s a sorry state of affairs when gunmen go on a rampage but I’m not going to excuse the renewed calls for turning the middle east into one giant glass sheet. Or of the complete silence over the attacks on Mosques throughout Europe over the month of December. Or the gleeful sharing of stories of torture in Guantanamo Bay. People like Todd Dubois only want outrage when it suits their political agenda and they’re getting it.
No tears shed.
I’m a little busy being afraid of the next white supremacist group that gets away with bombing a black civil rights org here in the states, thanks.
Todd: “But if you don’t back free speech and freedom of the press even when it comes to speech that greatly offends your sensibilities (or those of ones you sympathize with), then you don’t really believe in it. If a principle is put aside when put to the test, it’s not a principle. ”
But…Jacob’s not saying Hebdo should be censored. He’s saying they should be criticized. That’s not the same thing.
I find Douthat’s formulation really confused. Anti-semitism in Europe can be policed and prosecuted; therefore we need more anti-Semitic speech in Europe? Letting whacko extremists with guns set your agenda for you is letting whacko extremists with guns set your agenda for you. The idea that the Islamic militants are damaged or even defied by anti-Muslim caricatures is the exact opposite of the truth. Hate feeds on hate.
Brave, timely, necessary post. I would only add that in a society that uses racism to delineate who’s worthy of life and protection and who’s worthy of exclusion, heightened policing and invasions, it’s impossible to frame expressions of “free speech” that targets specific demographics for violent misfortune as “peaceful” or “innocuous.” There’s a level of interrelation between racist violence and reproducing/creating the logic that justifies racist violence that gets ignored when we offer blanket denunciations of people who see the consequences of oppressive framing against themselves and against their people/culture and respond in kind.
While I’m not prepared to offer a specific defense for these people (since I don’t know them and may not agree with their motives), I do want to leave both the rhetorical and empathetic door open for a perspective on racism that internalizes the need for a collective self-defense that responds appropriately to oppression and chooses its targets accordingly.
Arguments are not meaningfully changing minds or saving lives here. Empathy is not operative for the demographics suffering. The presumption of shared humanity isn’t being equally granted and in places like France, aren’t likely to be. Right now, there’s an incredible, swift and predominately white mobilization around a conception of the west that’s not just actively hostile to Muslims, but that sees their presence as inimical to its existence/definition of “civilized.” Furthermore, concepts like “free speech” and “freedom of expression” are being used in ways that both show how power is concentrated spread and show who’s supposed to be crushed by that concentration. It’s not adequate to say that the status quo is just racist and mean when the logic of everything that’s going on is leading straight to a President Le Pen.
That’s a violent conclusion that’s being engaged in democratically, foreshadowed democratically and expressed democratically and I’m not sure “drawing cartoons” should be divorced from what drawing these cartoons cements in the consciousness of a west where such practices have concrete consequences for those tasked with grinning and bearing them. The violence did not start today, and the onus is not on Muslims to seek peace or to internalize definitions of “acceptable violence” that speaks to white/western conditions and consequences instead of their own.
Just want to say thank you to Jacob Canfield for writing this article and for also responding to comments too. Very brave
And I want to condemn Jacob for his caricaturing of the victims of the shooting as racist assholes, giving dead-souled horrors like Julian and Grue a champion to rally around.
Grue, I get your point…but I have to stop at suggesting (or even hinting at suggesting) that the violence was somehow self defense. If anything opens the door to Le Pen, it’s incidents like this. Muslims who are condemning the attacks do so in the full knowledge that violent attacks like this put them more, not less, at risk.
Charlie was attacking the idiocy of extremism of all religions and belief systems. I’m of the belief we should be allowed to mock and satirize religious beliefs especially if they lead to violence. It is at these moments as well that the harsh light of satire be cast upon these murderous extremist that took the lives of humorists and artists. Further we should be asking the non-violent Muslims WTF? Why is it so easy for your belief system to devolve so quickly to control through violence. Call me racist, but I will always condemn and make fun of people that do acts of violence in the name of a make believe friend. Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Satanist, Pagan I don’t care. Nous Sommes Charlie
Shayne, I’m with those who don’t think non-violent Muslims have anything to answer for. If their interpretation of Islam (which I know little about) is peaceful, that’s good enough for me. I don’t believe a religion can make people violent; people can make a religion violent.
Jacob — I’ve been around a long time and have lived all over the world. Yes, I’m absolutely serious.
Noah — I took exception with Jacob’s assertion that anti-Islamic cartoons are inherently racist. Generally, charges of racism usually revolve around color, and Muslims come in all colors — just as Christians come in all colors.
I don’t disagree with his xenophobic charge, but I can’t really fault the French for that, since most countries I’ve visited are xenophobic to some degree. The homophobic charge may or may not be true, but it’s hard to tell for sure with a publication that ruthlessly skewers everyone and everything.
Regarding Jacob’s Iranian background — if that’s the case, then he should know exactly what I’m talking about with the entire Aryan thing. He’s not the only one who is familiar with Iranian culture.
“Changing your twitter avatar to a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad is a racist thing to do, even in the face of a terrorist attack. ”
No it isn’t. Offending someone is not the same as being “racist”.
Drawing a pictorial representation of a historical figure is not a racist act just because it offends religious muslims, anymore than Gallileo was “racist” for making claims contrary to the catholic church’s beliefs of heliocentricism and published them in a book.
I agree with the gist of the piece, and I largely agree with Jacob’s analyses of the cartoons.
However.
I think if free speech is supposed to mean anything at all, it’s fucking nuts to call Charb a “racist asshole” in the context of his quote above. Being governed by secular and democratic rules rather than by religious sensibilities, as Charb insists he is, is the very foundation of freedom of speech, not some unfortunate offshoot of it.
Blasphemy is not racism. Blasphemy is not even necessarily in bad taste. If morally justified, ruthless blasphemy is a virtue. Satire that pussyfoots around religious sensibilities is rubbish satire; it doesn’t just NOT further free speech and freedom of expression – it’s an active contribution to suppressing them.
I know too little about Charb to determine if he’s a racist. The citation above certainly doesn’t make him one.
Others have alluded to this, but I have a big problem with the line in this post: “Changing your twitter avatar to a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad is a racist thing to do”. Overall, I do agree with several of the points the author raises in the post, and I do agree that some of the cartoons might qualify as racist. That said, suggesting that it is racist to depict the prophet Mohammed IS ACTUALLY (and no doubt unintentionally) RACIST ITSELF. Islam is not a race. It is a religion. It has specific doctrines (such as the non-depiction of the prophet) that are shared by people of a number of ethnic and national groupings. To suggest that caricatures of the prophet are racist is to imply that Islam is indistinguishable from race (presumably the Arab race?). And that is racist. I am sure Persian, Turkish, Bosnian, Indian, Malay and Filipino Muslims might find such depictions offensive, but I don’t think racism would be their first concern. To call caricatures of the prophet “racist” is to denude the word of any meaning.
What a joke of an article. More ‘look what whitie made me do’. If you dont like Charlie hebdo and/or think it is racist – then campaign for a change in law. Sue them. Start a magazine mocking whities. Plenty of options. But this apologia for violence is a dark murderous race to the bottom.
Being told I need to support work that I find racist or bigoted doesn’t exactly make me more sympathetic to Hebdo. It just makes me angrier that free speech only ever flows one way. If I point out Hebdo is click bait racist French rag, I’m a soulless monster. But when Hebdo’s supporters argue that Muslims are violent criminals well that’s just free speech, isn’t it?
More and more people are waking up and realizing that this is a bum deal. Where has the outrage been when Mexican reporters are dragged off in the middle of the night? Why weren’t the attacks on Mosques considered an attack on free expression? Like I said, I won’t shed tears for someone’s political and xenophobic agenda
Shayne:
“Why is it so easy for your belief system to devolve so quickly to control through violence.”
First, it’s not like historically Islam’s record of violence is clearly worse than that of other religions like Christianity (or really Buddhism for that matter.)
Second, there’s a pretty clear reason that Islamic fundamentalism is so violent at the moment. It’s because it’s allied itself with, or is intertwined with, anti-imperialist nationalist struggles in the context of a Middle East that has been subject to Western incursions and control for hundreds of years. And, yes, attacks like this on France are likely to increase the probability of further imperialist violence in the Middle East, just as imperialist violence in the Middle East increases the probability of atrocities such as this one.
Thank you.
This needed to be pointed out – people are too nervous to say it, at this point, but the Hebdo crew do not deserve to become martyrs. I am deeply saddened by the attack, they didn’t deserve to come to harm, but if they’d not been shot, I’d not have been surprised if they’d been associated with the growing racism and anti-semitism that has been scaling up across the region for the last few years more overtly, and soon.
Charlie Hebdo was closer to Dieudonne in some respects than to a conventional left-wing publication, or a healthy exhibition of satire.
If you don’t like my questionable opinions – don’t buy my magazine. If you don’t like free speech – don’t shoot me. It’s a real pity that the cartoonists didn’t have AKs, or that the cowards who attacked couldn’t draw.
Thanks for this article. I disagree with it on a number if points, but agree on others.
I certainly agree with you that no-one should be murdered for drawings, writings, poetry or song. No-one should have died today. Those people who perpetrated this act had no justification whatsoever. None.
My response to what you wrote so eloquently, will be garbled… But here goes. And you can bear with me or not. You can choose. You can choose to take offense at what I say, or accept our world view may differ for many reasons. You may feel there should be only one response to your article and that is, “he has a right to say that.” I wont disagree. Some may. Here goes…
I don’t believe westerners criticising Islam is racist. But I do agree that some of what I have seen of Hebdo is plain silly and meaning to be offensive.
I don’t think peoples right to being offended is a right at all. It kind of reminds me of when I went to, or helped produce plays in Northern Ireland that offended the religious right (Catholic and Protestant on various occasions, and when extra successful, both together) so much, they protested outside on opening night, before ANYONE had seen the bloody thing. They demanded the closure of the plays. And all sorts of threats came through the door and via the press. They felt offended. We offended them. Meh. We wanted to. We challenged their comfortable world view of homophobia, sectarianism and bigotry. And we faced down their threats.
Offense would not occur if they did not open Charlie Hebdo- or perhaps if they did open it, measure the silly ink drawings against their strong, centuries old, unshakable faith, they wouldn’t be offended…
I am offended by The Daily Mail, but I don’t buy it, therefore I tend only to be offended by it if a link turns up on my twitter stream. And really only offended if the Mail attacks by lying or warping the truth about the powerless.
I am offended by the antics of the Bullingdon Club past and present. And I fight the with words, satire and art as much as I can.
I don’t understand strong beliefs that feel weakened by attack. And I don’t believe provoking fundamentalists, be they Christian, Muslim or Jewish is racist. I believe it isn’t nice to argue about religion at a dinner party and berate your dinner partner as “wrong,” at the table. But to berate a religion as being wrong in the pages of a magazine that religious people are unlikely to buy is perhaps at worst, sneering from the kitchen with the door closed. Shouting outside the theatre as the audience actually learn the context of the nudity, bad language or references to religion.
“If you continue to make faces at me behind that door, I’m going to hit you!” >>looks through the keyhole to see me do just that.<<
Ok, this is a simplification. But I feel your view of the cartoons is a simplification. It does not take into consideration context-the context of the secular laws in France and how fiercely they were fought for against the Church, and how fiercely the have been defended over the past 100 years. And your view as others have said, does not take into consideration the context of the date of publishing etc. I think your argument is reducing down to the fact that one cartoon has a hooked nose… But again, this caricature of racism has context.
Having said that, you have given me food for thought. I wont be adding a cartoon of The Prophet to my facebook avatar as I have friends to whom that would cause offence. Though as a secular atheist white middle aged man, I have little anyone could post on their profiles that would offend me besides someone burning a £50 note in front of the face of a homeless person. Or ignoring me.
None of Charlie Hebdo's, yours or my words mean anything whatsoever compared to the dreadful, heinous crime against humanity carried out on the streets of Paris or in the Yemen today. Compared to those lives lost, and the lives ruined, they are whispers in the storm.
1. Degrade, insult, demean, and antagonize a group of people over, and over, and over, and over again until some of them finally reach a breaking point and lash out.
2. Condemn the entirety of their group for the actions of the few who reacted violently to your repeated emotional abuse.
3. Vow to continue abusing them in spite of their anger.
4. Congratulate yourself for being a champion of freedom.
5. Repeat.
Interesting to see a lot of the far left jump the shark today over their reaction to this attack. White male hegemony is so powerful, white men have the power to oppress even while being murdered for drawing cartoons.
Dave, I think that gets awfully close to “they deserved it.” I really think you can criticize the cartoons without saying, or thinking, that they deserved it. Among other things, the most serious violence against Muslim communities comes from the state and the military, not from editorial cartoonists.
I deleted some comments. One line snark adds little to the discussion, and I don’t see any reason to leave it here.
Something doesn’t sit right with this article. Something smells bad here.
“Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from criticism”, so are you saying that the killing of these 12 is a form of criticism?
I just want to say that the Jack who posted at 6:53 pm is a different Jack from me, the original Hooded Utilitarian Jack.
I wasn’t trying to be snarky or snide. I’m just exasperated with the number of people whose response to this has been ‘you don’t have a right to be offended.’ 1) I would hope everyone in this discussion can see that murder isn’t the default response to offense. 2) Of course people have to be offended. We have a right to our feelings. Insisting people cannot feel offense and cannot express anger or disdain when offended is infringement in their right to free expression and an attack on their autonomy. And 3) it is an insult to everyone who has died at the hands of radical Islam to make this about ‘the right to offend.’ You are not remembering the dead when you make racist caricatures. They become a rhetorical flourish to shield you from criticism.
I apologize if this is all coming across as combative but I haven’t seen any mourning today except from Muslims who are likely to be on the receiving end of ‘vengence’ in the coming weeks. The largely white Hebdo fanbase has done nothing but pass around click bait cartoons and pat itself on the back for ‘defending freedom.’
The Qur’an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but several hadith (sayings and actions attributed to the prophet) prohibit Muslims from creating visual depictions of human figures. Prohibit MUSLIMS. Not Christians, not atheists, not Buddhists, only MUSLIMS. Just as Judaism prohibits the creation of ‘graven images’ and some Christians get pissed if someone literally dunks a crucifix in piss. However much we may respect that religions have these odd rules internally, we cannot allow them to be imposed on non-adherents. They have to learn to suck it up, whatever colour they may be. Plus, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander : they DO produce hateful cartoons of their own. Have you not seen any of the constant stream of racist anti-Semitic cartoons clogging up the pages of Arab and Iranian newspapers and magazines?
Hey all. This piece has really blown up; we’re getting probably twenty times the traffic we usually do, at least. Given that, and given the controversial subject matter, I don’t think moderating comments is really feasible any more, so I’m going to shut the thread down. Thanks all for commenting and reading.