This past Wednesday, three Islamic extremists carried out a deadly attack on the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, leaving 12 people dead. A national hunt for the terrorists came to a violent end when French police caught the two remaining suspects, and simultaneously ended a connected hostage situation in Paris.
Within hours of the initial attack on Charlie Hebdo, the French government, its people, and much of the world demonstrated outrage, denouncing the act as an assault on freedom of expression. Cartoonists around the world flooded Twitter with their own work in support; international media outlets reprinted or retweeted the drawings of Charlie Hebdo‘ artists. Others spoke out in solidarity with the murdered journalists. Even one of France’s most famous cartoonists, Albert Udezo, came out of retirement to join the movement.
The French government announced that it would give the magazine almost 1 million euros to continue operations. A Google-backed Press Fund is donating $300,000 to Charlie Hebdo. The Guardian Media Group has also pledged £100,000.
“Je suis Charlie” quickly became the words of solidarity.
Mais nous ne sommes pas tous Charlie. We are not all Charlie. The 45- year old satirical magazine has built its reputation through the regular mocking of national and international figures and institutions, including religion. Their most publicized target was, of course, Islam. While the magazine’s cartoons were, at times, politically poignant, others were just simply offensive, or provocative at best.
Babette Petiot, a French Polytheist living in the Auvergne countryside, said, “Je n’aimais pas particulièrement “Charlie Hebdo,” je ne l’ai jamais acheté, parce que je trouve que c’est vraiment de mauvais gout…” [I did not specially like Charlie Hebdo, didn’t buy it even once, because I thought it was really of bad taste.]
Slate‘s Jordan Weissman, as well as others, have gone as far as labeling the magazine “racist.” Weissman writes, “This, in a country where Muslims are a poor and harassed minority, maligned by growing nationalist movement that has used liberal values like secularism and free speech to cloak garden-variety xenophobia.”
This complication provokes a necessary recalibration of the expressions of solidarity with Charlie Hebdo. Can we stand in silent vigil for the victims, but not necessarily endorse their work? Can we create an allegiance with the movement “Je suis Charlie,” speak out against the violence wrought by religious extremism, while ignoring the fact that Charlie Hebdo is what could be considered journalistic extremism?
Satirical writing and cartoons, like those produced by Charlie Hebdo, are meant to provoke, to challenge and often to incite. Satire raps on the door of decency and often just knocks it completely down. Satirists cross cultural lines of acceptable rhetoric with the intent of creating discomfort and provoking reaction. It is what’s expected of that genre and, within a free press, it is allowed.
With that said, quoting the famous American broadcast journalist, Walter Cronkite, “Freedom is a package deal – with it comes responsibilities and consequences.” As demonstrated in a recent New York Times article, Charlie Hebdo’s writers were willing to shoulder the responsibility for crossing lines and knocking down doors, and fully exercising their freedom to express.
In the Times article, the Charlie Hebdo staff is depicted not as radicals, militants or doctrinaires; rather they are described as fierce defenders of and believers in the freedom of expression. The article quotes Françoise Mouly, art editor of The New Yorker as saying, “They weren’t hiding behind their drawings. They knew the dangers. There had been firebombs and threats. They were actually defying a gag order given to them by extremists.”
She added that the publisher, Stephane Chardonnier, had once equally defended the rights of local Muslims to protest his paper. At the time, Chardonnier said, “We have a right to express ourselves. They have a right to express themselves, too.”
![Charlie Hebdo's Editor talks to media after 2011 fire bombing [Photo Credit: Coyau / Wikimedia]](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2011-11-02_Incendie_à_Charlie_Hebdo_-_Charb_-_01-500x333.jpg)
Charlie Hebdo’s Editor talks to media after 2011 fire bombing [Photo Credit: Coyau / Wikimedia]
Regardless of the Charlie Hebdo’s content, the deadly attack was still unthinkable. No act of journalism warrants an act of extreme terror. No act of journalism warrants bloodshed.
Petiot said “Je ne vais certainement pas supporter que des fous qui furieux attaquent et tuent des journalistes et des dessinateurs pour leurs idées! Pour quelques dessins idiots?! C’est totalement et proprement inacceptable! Oui, je suis avec le mouvement “Je suis Charlie” parce que c’est une attaque contre la liberté d’expression.” [“I will not stand for some crazy people attacking and killing journalists and cartoonists for their opinions! For their silly cartoons! This is totally and utterly not acceptable! Yes I stand with “Je suis Charlie” because it was an attack on liberty of expression.“]
Siannon, a Wiccan living Paris, expressed a similar thought, “Je suis bien sûr choquée que l’on tue des dessinateurs, que certains s’attaquent avec une telle violence à la liberté d’expression.” [“I am absolutely shocked that someone would kill cartoonists that people would attack freedom of expression with such violence.“]
Over the past few days, French Pagans have been attending the spontaneous vigils in public squares and lighting candles for the victims. Cogann Moran is collecting signatures on a statement from members of the French Pagan community.
Although she supports the movement, Siannon has not felt compelled to pray, saying, “Une païenne a fait une remarque qui a attiré mon attention: elle rappelait que les principales victimes étaient athées, défenseurs de l’État laïque, et n’auraient peut être pas aimé qu’on leur fasse des prières.” [“One Pagan made a remark that really got my attention. She remembered that the main victims were atheists, defenders of a secular state, and would never have liked anyone praying for them.”]
![[Photo Credit: Valentina Calà/Flickr]](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/16038033640_11018f0d01_z-500x333.jpg)
[Photo Credit: Valentina Calà/Flickr]
Les deux frères ont eu davantage de couverture médiatique qu’un homme politique français ne pourrait rêver d’obtenir. Les chaines d’infos ont littéralement parlé d’eux 24/24. D’autres chaînes leur ont consacré tous les bulletins d’infos, comme si rien d’autre ne s’était passé entre-temps dans le monde entier. Même Obama parle d’eux! Il est allé à l’ambassade française avec les meilleures intentions, j’en suis sure, mais j’ai peur qu’il n’envoie un message indésirable à quelques tarés qui rêvent de devenir des héros… Personnellement, je ne me joindrai pas à la mouvance “Je suis Charlie,” parce je pense que, moins nous parlons de ces gars-là, moins nous risquons d’inspirer d’éventuels imitateurs.
[“The two brothers are getting more news coverage than any French politician could ever dream of. News channels literally talked about them round the clock. Other channels devoted all the newscasts to them, as if nothing else had happened meanwhile in the whole world. Even Obama is talking about them! He went to the French Embassy with the best intentions, I’m sure, but I’m afraid he is sending the wrong message to some crazy bastards dreaming of becoming heroes… I’m personally not joining “Je suis Charlie” because I think the less we talk about these guys, the less we risk inspiring copycats.”]
Both Siannon and Petiot noted the presence of real fear in the country as well as a notable surge in Islamphobia. Siannon said, “Les plus sages soulignent l’importance de ne pas nourrir la haine.” [The wisest and most important point to stress is to not nourish hate.”]
With that, we are reminded of the original question. If we stand in solidarity with a magazine noted for mocking religion, are we nourishing hatred or, at the very least, supporting an indifferent tolerance of it? Or is it possible to surgically separate Charlie Hebdo’s satirical work from Charlie Hebdo’s philosophy on free expression? Can we separate the content from the belief?
This brings us to the Ahmed Merabet, the French police officer who was murdered defending Charlie Hebdo. According to reports, Merabet was a French Muslim, who was guarding Charlie Hebdo’s headquarters, while those inside mocked his beliefs. When news of this spread, a second solidarity campaign was born. Je Suis Ahmed. While there is still speculation on whether he is actually Muslim, the new solidarity statement has gathered its own power, meaning and momentem. It says, “I don’t agree with what you say. But I defend your right to say it.”*
While Charlie Hebdo‘s approach to journalism is not one that I, personally, would endorse. As a writer and editor, I can’t help but approve of its fierce support of freedom of expression and of the press. Non, je ne suis pas Charlie. Peut-être, je suis Ahmed. Mais, je suis certainement la liberté.
* This is statement is inspired by a sentence out of a Voltaire biography written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1906.
The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.
To join a conversation on this post:
Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.
It isn’t necessary to separate Charlie Hebdo’s work from Charlie Hebdo’s philosophy. It is our philosophy that guides us, a philosophy that supports journalistic freedom and spurs us to say so when it matters.
This is exactly it! Thank you so much for those apt words.
je suis Voltaire.
Voltaire was a racist:
«C’est une grande question parmi eux s’ils son descendus des
singes, ou si les singes sont venus d’eux. Nos sages ont dit que
l’homme est l’image de Dieu: voilà une plaisante image de l’Etre
éternel qu’un nez noir épaté, avec peu ou point d’intelligence!
Un temps viendra, sans doute, où ces
animaux sauront bien cultiver la terre, l’embellir par des
maisons et par des jardins, et connaître la route des astres.
Il faut du temps pour tout>>
He also owned parts in a Triangular trade company, while having written against slavery.
Still, he wrote some seriously awesome stuff.
Could you give a source for your quote too? I am curious to know from which work it came from. Also: *sont. “son” means “his”.
“gone as far as labeling the magazine “racist.””
NOT “gone as far as”. They were racist as hell. They drew the Justice Minister — a black woman — as a monkey. They drew the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram as pregnant and demanding welfare — none of them have been recovered, pregnant or not, and they’re probably dead.
They were also sexist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic. This isn’t an alleged thing, they were objectively these things by any reasonable standard. Don’t weasel-word this. We can deplore what happened to them and not defend what they did. CH wasn’t a bastion of free speech, it was a nest of bigotry, using free speech and humor as excuses to pound on people already oppressed.
No, even though you are entitled to your own opinions, you are wrong.
Why?
Because I know better than you. (cf. my -lengthy- post).
Please reflect on things before commenting on them. And unless you ever read any Charlie Hebdo (I doubt you speak French anyway), please acknowledge that you cannot possibly expect to get a fair picture of the paper.
No, I don’t read French. I have, however, read some pretty extensive stuff by French POC about the magazine. Not everything they published was racist or bigoted in other ways, but they did often publish stuff that was really racist or otherwise bigoted. That makes the organization bigoted. You are wrong.
They made fun of POC as well as whites. Of muslims as well as xtians. Is making fun of people racism? Or hate speech?
Making fun of POC in ways that are racist is racist, no matter who else is made fun of. Making fun of an oppressed group in a way that follows bigoted tropes and stereotypes is bigotry. It’s bigotry even if you call it “humor” or “satire”. It has the same effect on people as “earnest” bigotry. Actions are racist, are bigotry, regardless of the intent behind them.
I agree with you with several points: Indeed, it is possible to be racist or do racist things without being aware of it. And using, as you said, ´bigoted tropes and stereotypes´ can also be considered racist. Now I ask you, can you find me examples of humor targeting minorities and other oppressed groups that you would actually agree with or even find funny? Because I would guess that you’d be much easier to offend than the majority of French people (minorities included) who might very well have a different approach on that question.
It doesn’t matter what you or I or most French people find funny. It matters what actually reinforces bigotry, because bigotry harms and kills people. When the people who are the target of the bigotry say that something is a problem, it is the duty of anyone who doesn’t want to be a bigot to listen to them. French POC and Muslims and LGBT people say that CH’s material has been bigoted for a long time. Why should I listen to you over them? Why do you think you know better than they do what harms them?
It is true that they have different opinion that I and they are most welcome to have and make known those opinions. But I feel like if anything that shocks or offend people became forbidden, the world would be a cold, desolate place. Charlie had and should have the right to publish whatever they choose as long as it isn’t actually hate speech. If some individuals end up pissed in the process, well, too bad. Should a newspaper refuse to make cartoons about politicians because it might offend voters of particular parties? In any cases if you do have some links towards posts incriminating Charlie, I would actually be interested to read them.
It’s not about forbidding anything. It’s not about offending people. It’s about not doing harm. When you repeat bigotry without criticizing it, you are saying that the bigotry is right, is correct, is acceptable. You are reinforcing it and becoming a part of it. And bigotry kills people, and harms them in countless other ways. Not hurts their feelings, but actually harms them, physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually.
Charlie Hebdo had the right to publish what they did, but the responsibility not to do harm, and they did harm, and they knew they did harm, and they continued to do it. And anybody identifying themselves with Charlie Hebdo is saying that they think doing harm is peachy keen.
I’ve been scrolling down my Tumblr dash on and off for maybe half an hour, and just opening up a few tabs I thought looked interesting on the topic. Have a sampling:
Since apparently no one outside the Jewish…
Anti-semitism and Islamophobia…
Charlie Hebdo
On est ensemble
Before social media sparks fire…
I’m sure, being French and a Francophone, you have far more resources than I do. If you want to understand what French POC, Muslims, Jews, and LGBT people are criticizing about CH, I suggest you go look some of them up. Go see what people are saying. Don’t take my word for it.
Well, thanks for the links. Considering that it’s almost three in the morning I will have to wait until tomorrow to check them up but I sure will.
Okay I read your blog posts. First of all, the first two mention the rise of anti-semitism in France. This is indeed a fact. there have been more anti-semtici attacks as of late. But considering that none of your sources seem to be linking this situation to Charlie Hebdo, I think we can all agree that it has nothing to do with it. Quite the contrary, it actually censored itself and fired a cartoonist a couple years back when one of his cartoons was suspected to potentially be understood as antisemtic (google “Siné” for more details).
Your third link mentions racism towards north-African people and, this time, actually links this to Charlie Hebdo. However, it does not provide any explanation why so I can hardly understand his position.
When it comes to your fourth and fifth link we actually come to some specific cartoons, I will try to comment on every one of them, because most often, the people posting these drawings did not provide any context, or only a biased one.
– “Touchez pas a nos allocs”: The cartoon was drawn as France was considering cutting welfare payment for women giving birth. This was quite an issue when it happened and the journal threw ridicule to the issue by imagining the boko Haram girls as welfare money recipients. It’s quite a cruel cartoon, but it does the job.
– “non au manifs de vielles gouines”: Two women were at the forefront of the anti-LGBT movement in France. They can’t stand LGBT people, therefore the journal turned their rhetoric upside down in order to invective them. The goal in that cartoon: throwing as much shit onto them as possible while hitting where it hurts. Works well to me.
– “Tous les pouvoirs”: “bobonne” is far from being a huge mysiginistic slur. I have, in my almost 20 years in France NEVER heard it. It is, as far as I know, only found in Asterix comics, where it is used by the weak chieftain to mention is wife (generally, his wife kicks his but afterwards). Once again: Hollande is a piece of shit, and as far as Charlie , and most people in France is concerned, everything goes to ridicule him.
– “Les francais aussi cons que les negres”: Here the blogger utterly lied saying that this comic was from the XXIst century: it’s actually from 1980. Back in the day, France was shifting from “negre” to “noir” and the former wasn’t as charged as it is know. Overall, the cartoon is principally anti-catholic, while mocking conservative white catholics who were, back then, the first ones to say that blacks were not as intelligent as white (and then got stupid when the pope came to France, got it?).
– “Mon frere” is about conservative muslims who work in order to turn non-religious Blacks and Arabs back to the mosk. This is indeed a thing in France, but those guys almost never go towards white this way. The mention of a price for women probably refers to ISIL’s claims that they sold Yezidis girls as slaves. In that case, the extremely devot French muslim guy is equated to the jihadists in Irak and Syria. Is it true? No, but it sure is funny.
– “Le GPA” this cartoon pastiches the claims from anti LGBT activists that allowing surrogacy pregnancy will lead to the enslavement of surrogate mums and the establishment of a price tag for children (by paying the surrogate mum). The far right movement really went crazy on this issue and this cartoon is a parody of their theories.
– “Quel homme pour Valerie”: this one is indeed quite harsh and mean towards the ex-GF of the president. I actually agree that this one is quite tasteless.
– “DSK l’avait prevenu”: I don’t see the problem. The two men were close, from the same party and DSK was supposed to be the socialist candidate before he was accused of rape. The cartoon belitles Hollande more than DSk, that is true, but believe, Charlie did target DSk quite a lot when his sordid rape story came out.
– “y a pas que des barbus dans la vie”: don’t see any problem either. The cartoon is about the indoctrination of very young children by islamist extremists in Syria and Irak as well as several middle-eastern pedophilia scandals. I really see no way someone could be offended by the cartoon.
– “familles décomposées”: cruel indeed, especially the second one, a reference to some horrid gang-rape tales from the suburbs. But once again, it is first and foremost a mockery of the anti LGBT campaigners who argue that a family is one dad and one mum only.
– Monkey cartoon: quite offensive if you ask me, but the blogger removed the original captions that were drawn around the cartoon which identified the Far right party Front National and those from this party who have been mistreating the minister. Croping those words (that you can find on the last blog entry you gave me) shows that this blogger is dishonest.
– “la belgique”: Depardieu is an asshole and he is fat. CH decides to mock his fatness. Not intelligent whatsoever, but well deserved.
– “methode globanale”: once again a crticism of the anti LGBT propaganda that says that the adoption of the gender theory in the classrooms will lead to the spread of sexual perversion and queerness among the youth. This is once again a crticism of the anti LGBT theories, not the LGBT people themselves and it’s pretty clear.
– “Hitler”: context: Far right rising in France. People are wandering if one should treat these new politicians as normal ones or avoid them due to their ideology. In that cartoon: Hitler = The far-rightists. His speech = the far-rightists (completely failed) attempts to become “normal”. Otherwise, it’s quite a well-made cartoon.
– “Leonarda”: this girl was kicked out of France because her family did not have a job, was poorly educated and not economically viable. The question here is not to wander if this act was warranted, right or fair, but that for a couple days, every media were talking about her non stop. She became even more famous when the president tried to handle the situation but failed miserably and had Leonarda’s mum insulting him, while her daughter taunted the French authorities The cartoon is first and foremost a diatribe against Hollande, not at all against Leonarda and it’s quite clear.
So, I will have to stop here because I have a meeting at the local magazine I volunteer for. Please do answer if you have any more questions.
Please stop. This is so far from the first time you’ve defended racism here, and had it explained to you very carefully, that it’s getting painful to watch.
Please stop. If not for yourself, then for everyone reading this in passing.
Seconded.
Look, Dantes… I think this is probably the first time in years Ruadhan and I have agreed publicly on anything. And if you’re hearing it from two such very different sources, and MadGastronomer has taken the time and trouble to spell out the problem with your thinking?
Maybe it’s time to acknowledge the possibility that you’re wrong about something. Because you are. White people don’t get to decide when something is or isn’t racist based on what we think is funny or not intended to offend. (The assumption that our feelings are the ones that set the terms of social discourse? another word for that is privilege. It means, “I don’t have to pay attention to what the other guy thinks, because I’m not offended, thanks.”)
And even if we were the ones to decide what is or isn’t racist, the only people out there who will find portraying people of color as monkeys or Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram as pregnant and demanding welfare the least bit funny are themselves wildly racist. If you took a poll, the vast majority of white people see clearly that these are racist.
That you do not is a problem. Stop advertising it, center down, and think.
I am sorry, but I actually know the context of almost every cartoon that has been brought here and I stand my ground. What Charlie did was black humor (mostly). They never were racist. Anti-Jesuischarlie tumbler-activists are simply discording the facts, omitting context while catering towards people who mostly don’t read French and have never heard of the paper before. The simple fact that you are simply can only point out one cartoon as actually racist proves that you don’t have much of a footing here.
Those cartoons are cruel. That is so true. The paper is actually so cruel that however opens it is guaranteed to be offended, regardless of their race, religion or political color. Some of those cartoons were good, some were bad, some were funny and some were just gross. I agree that this Boko Haram cover is tasteless and offensive, but Charlie hebdo has made countless tasteless (pointless, even) and offensive covers featuring just about everyone. Another question would be how are they supposed to feature poc in their cartoons anyway? The editorial lie of the paper has softened over the years indeed (cf the negre + hitler covers) but when I hear you, Madgastronomer and Ruadhán it almost sounds like white people shouldn’t be allowed to make fun of any other people. Is that what you all mean? Should such a paper be harsh and offensive towards white people only and soft and cuddly towards poc? Should they feature poc at all? Should they offend anyone at all? Should they be allowed to? Should they have the right to, not only gratuitously offend, but also criticize people who deserve it even if it might be mistaken for something it is not? Should they use satire at all? And what about the people who share the hashtag? Are they being offensive? Are they being racists? Are they just privileged assholes who should be taught how to think about their own country by anonymous internet avatars on the other side of the ocean? What about the pocs and other muslims who endorsed the hashtag? Are they traitors? privileged racists? I would seriously like to know your position about all these issues, even though I realize that we won’t fix all the world’s problem on a disqs comment chain.
If you all really want to argue on this issue please don’t just throw ad hominem attack like Madgastronomer’s original one which really was just unsubstantiated rambling or just brush it off like none of my arguments were valid at all, like Ruadhán’s. I certainly can be wrong at time, and I can freely admit it. I can also agree with someone on some issues and disagree completely on others. I also acknowledge that I might not be completely rational in my thinking or expression thereof because seeing more than a dozen of people massacred in broad daylight in my country did indeed shock me a little…
Ok, so bigotry is cool.
OK, so you’re a bigot.
If they were as you told, then they didn’t hire women (but they did, otherwise the terrorist wouldn’t separate them http://nypost.com/2015/01/09/charlie-hebdo-terrorists-separated-men-and-women-before-executions/) nor defend same sex marriage (but they did http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/688222-une-de-charlie-hebdo-une-pitoyable-contribution-au-debat-sur-le-mariage-gay.html), and I guess that by anti-semitic you mean to mock the Jewish part in the Palestinian conflict (like in https://easternmediterraneanagency.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/israel-palestine-charlie-hebdo-1.jpg, but if that’s bad, aren’t you justifying Israel actions against Palestinian?)
So yeah, they mocked people from the three “great religions” along with everybody else. One key is “they mocked”. Mocking our differences and the stupid things we do and believe is necessary just so we don’t take ourselves too seriously, for some beliefs (like the prohibition of speaking ill of Muhammed) have people kill other people when taken too seriously.
And by mocking they’re making a ridicule of such beliefs, but they’re not inciting non-muslim people to, for instance, go to a Quran printer and kill the staff. Mocks are not “hate-speech”, precisely because by being mockeries in the first place, no (slightly intelligent) person can take them seriously.
Exactly: For one potentially mildly offensive cartoon about Islam, Judaism or a minority, the paper would publish three or four against the far right, conservative catholics and corrupt officials. Strangely, few critics of CH tend to mention that.
It is actually quite possible to express racist opinions and to be in favor of glbtq equality; to hire women and be anti-semitic. And, no, I’m not saying that because I’m an apologist for Israel in its dealings with Palestine; I simply recognize that one may promote both progressive and hateful things at the same time.
I fully agree that no one is above being mocked, and that nothing they printed justified killing anyone. But that doesn’t mean that hate speech is OK, either. This publication printed both legitimate satire and hateful racial stereotypes.
I can defend their right to do so without denying their racism, or identifying with the ways they may have contributed to an increasingly racist tenor of French discourse.
No, Charlie Hebdo did not contribute[…] to an increasingly racist tenor of French discourse. No Charlie Hebdo did not produce hate speech. Please do not cast the first stone on an institution you did not know existed a week ago, on the grounds of some oriented information found on the internet. If you want to see real hate speech that does increase racism in France just google “égalité et réconciliation + les dessins de la semaine” and you’ll see that there’s quite a big difference already.
I am actually a French national, raised there with, among other things, Charlie Hebdo. When I was a teenager i used to buy the paper almost every week and when I didn’t have the money for that, I would just go to the newsstand and read the back-page cartoons, which were often the funniest.
I command your article Heather, as it is very well-written and shows a decent understanding of the situation, but I am disappointed by the fact that you refuse to show solidarity enough to share a simple hashtag.
Still I overall do agree with your analysis which is much better researched and written than other I could find in the interwebs. I would however give you my take on the paper as well.
Describing Charlie Hebdo as “journalist extremism” is very apt way to describe the paper, I also believe it is completely impossible to “surgically separate Charlie Hebdo’s satirical work from Charlie Hebdo’s philosophy on free expression? Can we separate the content from the belief?” Charlie was basically a very harsh (there is worse though, like “L’écho des Savannes”) satirical newspaper which, as you mentioned, attacked just about everyone’s sensibilities. Every political party, every religion, every subculture, every personality and every institution became at one point or another, a victim of Charlie´s satire.
Some of their comics were, acknowledgedly borderline scatophiliac and some were definitely more designed to shock than to make people think. Some mixed the two wonderfully well, and some were very tame but were incredibly true. I for example think about 80 years old Wolinski’s cartoons which focused mostly on the role and the image of women in society as well as the absurdity patriarchy. Cabu was a really good one as well, he created the incredibly funny strip “The beauf” (a word which means both brother in law and a boring/jacakssy kind of guy) where he criticized the hypocrisy and idiocy of the average 40-something upper middle-class white male.
It is very important to remember that Charlie Hebdo is not your average French paper. They started some years before the events of 1968 and were very much a Leftist/Libertairian/anti-militaristic/anti-institutional publication which was then named Hara-Kiri. Gods were they fierce those days. They would cruelly make fun of just about every one, pastiche stupid commentators and play around the still very-conservative French society. They became famous nationally after a very dark (but hilarious) cover story when they belittled General DeGaulle’s death, following that, the government forcibly shut down the paper, which was reborn under the name Charlie Hebdo.
I can of course only give first-hand account of the latest period of the paper but in my days in France Charlie was maybe not an institution, but at least the most respected satirical paper in the country (gods know they are numerous). They sure were not politically correct but they still were not considered particularly harsh then. That wasn’t the kind of paper you could bring to you aunt’s tea party but I remember reading while still a teenager and it didn’t make a fuss, my mum would always steal it after I read it all.
Charlie made some harsher comics too. Their first targets had always been Far-right politicians and the catholic church. I have seen some really disturbing cartoons about the pope, pedophile priests and jesus which were sometimes clearly drawn for shock value and sometimes both humorous and intelligent. Far right politicians have always been literally bashed by the paper, since the very beginning. Drawings about Marine LePen and her Father were often among the most scatophiliac or sexualized of all. On the whole, the cartoons made fun of everyone. Every government, every institution, every vapid and non vapid personalities were targeted. regardless of your political or ideological values you knew, upon reading Charlie that you would be offended. Even “normal people” were often portrayed in unflattering colors. The paper’s personnel also knew how to mock themselves. Far-left politics also brought quite a lot of fodder to Charlie’s columns too.
But now comes the question of islam.
Charlie made fun of islam, yes. Sometimes in an intelligent fashion, sometimes in very primitive ways but always in a funny way. Often, cartoons would feature a rabbi, a (catholic) bishop and an imam and ridicule them all equally. Sometimes they only criticized islam and islamism and that’s where things got nasty.
Everyone would agree that Charlie began to suffer from threats following the “C’est dur d’etre aimé par des cons” cover drawing, which featured a weeping mahomet complaining about how hard it was to be loved by “cons” (assholes). In itself the drawing was not offensive at all. It was a denunciation of islamism and of all religious terrorism. It was published following some of the most horrible attacks in Europe and the Middle East committed by jihadists and did not blame anyone but them. It didn’t even made fun of the religion as such. In addiition, the paper published the now infamous “mahomet cartoons” that led the Danish Jyllands posten to become the target of extremists.
But then, because this cartoon was viewed as provocative and because it broke one very important tenet of islamic faith, the paper was sued by two very mainstream French muslim unions as well as a radical group from Saudi Arabia. The paper thankfully wasn’t convicted of anything and continued to crticise religions, including islam.
in 2011, neighboring Tunisia held elections which lead to the victory of the controversial islamic party Ennahanda. To “celebrate” this victory, Charlie Hebdo set up Mahomet as the “Redactor-in-chief” of the paper and drew another potrait of the prophet in the front page: result: the offices of the paper is petrol-bombed and entirely destroyed,a deed that islamists openly took credit for.
In 2012, the paper was sued once again for his “Intouchables 2” cover which satirized both jews and muslisms alluding to the fact that criticizing them had become increasingly difficult as of late. Charges were dropped earlier last year.
And now in 2015, the paper falls victim of an attack by jihadists and most of the redaction, including the elderly Wolinski, Honoré (who drew absolutely awesome one strip-cartoons), Cabu as well as Tignous and Charb (Luz, maybe the best cartoonist of the paper was thankfully away that day). At the same time, other jihadists, which were almost certainly working with the Charlie attackers shot dead a black policewoman before executing 4 clients of a Jewish cosher store (you should really update your story to include that Heather).
…
I command the fact that you did not drew any link of causality, like some despicable commentators have done lately, between Charlie’s cartoons and the attack. The terrorists are the only responsible of this folly, and I thank you for having the decency to underline it. However, refusing to show sympathy for the paper by typing in a couple characters because you -and other- judge some of Charlie’s cartoons to be controversial is something I simply cannot comprehend.
Charlie never engaged in hate-speech. They ridiculed islam as they ridiculed other religions and only ever denounced islamism and not islam as a whole. By doing so, they indeed shocked French muslims who, it is true, might not have the same level of tolerance to dark-humor as other French due to their often negative portrayal in other medias. However, saying that Charlie’s cartoons ever contributed to the alienation of muslims in France is simply wrong. Charlie simply did their job: laugh at people and make people laugh. They weren’t always funny, were rarely politically correct but they never set to hurt anyone. However, as their history shows, they certainly did offend many, including some that clearly deserved all the ridicule Charlie Threw on them.
So, to make a very (very) long pasot short, I guess I could simply sum it up in 13 characters and a symbol:
#jesuisCharlie
Thank you for this post. The original article to which you are responding is pretty nasty, and not the kind of thing I expected of the Wild Hunt, which started out being about Pagan issues and which has become more and more political. I’m not going to contribute any more funding to Wild Hunt if this trend continues.
You are welcome.
I won’t be as harsh as you towards TWH (which is still the only Web-based media of quality) but it is true that a lot of article are not strictly speaking about Paganism these days. As long as a good editorial line is kept, I don’t mind it, but I indeed did mind this one post.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Dantes, merci beaucoup for taking the time to write this. I studied French in college and got to spend my junior (third) year in Paris, but I don’t speak French very well anymore and I’ve been struggling to learn more about Charlie Hebdo and the controversies involved. I really appreciate your insight and background information.
Heather, I don’t think I agree with your conclusions here, but I appreciate your efforts to talk to French Pagans and the great translations of their comments! It gives us an important range of perspectives from people who actually live there.
Thank you for your report here, Dantes, with your in-depth personal knowledge of the magazine. Surveying some of the cartoons I can find online it seems the Catholic Church bore the strongest brunt of their satire. Unfortunately the US TV outlets are so weak they won’t even show the cartoons (or blur them) as they are apparently deemed to offensive for a US audience. On the other hand on the ground I hear actual people saying they seem pretty “tame”.
I’ve always greatly admired the French for their dedication to liberty and freedom of expression no matter how dark or disturbing. In the ’60s American writers and artists fought in the courts for freedom from censorship, but that day has long passed.
Thanks both to Finnchuill and Nicole. I appreciate the support. And I also commend you for trying to learn more about the issue. I am chocked to learn that US TVs won’t even show any of those cartoons (borderline disrespectful if you ask me). If anyone needs to learn more about the issue, I advice you to check the numerous articles written on the subject on the BBC, they reprint several cartoons and have a very good analysis of the paper and its place in French society.
The New York Times refused also, but are taking quite a bit of flak for doing so.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/some-outlets-are-censoring-charlie-hebdos-satirical-cartoons#.hoyvGLvEz
Thanks for the link. It’s absolutely disgusting.
Glad to be able to watch France24 here–the coverage of the rallies was very moving. And pretty funny, if they were so racist what was with all the people of color holding Je Suis Charlie placards, and not just in France but in many other countries.
Dantes, thank you for the details in your comments here. I appreciate your input as a French national. I, myself, have a love for the country. I was a French major and lived in Paris for awhile. It is a wonderful place and I am horrified to see the terror that has descended on the country.
Despite this sadness I feel for what is far more than just an attack on journalism, I will not say these words. Words have power; the power that we give them. To me, these words say more than just “freedom of expression” or “solidarity against terror.” I stand with France against terror, I mourn the loss of life and stand for freedom of speech. But I must find other words to express these sentiments.
Also, you are free to do so, an thanks for your answer.But, to quote someone (I don’t really remember who, in the comments once), does it matter to know how many angels can dance on the head of a needle? Also, when the #blacklivesmatter came out, what would have happened if you, or anyone else decided that uttering those words meant something more or different than just expressing solidarity towards black people and their oppression? I acknowledge the fact that this is a hugely different issue, both in scope and in the matter it is made for, but I saw people in the comment section of that very article being bullied for refusing to utter those words. I won’t bully anyone into saying those, though, I find it very useful to know whom I can count as an ally or not. Because ultimately, you, and the other people fiddling with this hashtag are still blaming the paper because you think it is not worthy of your wholehearted sympathy. Passing judgement on innocent dead man disturbs me, really.
People express forms of solidarity in many different ways. If we judge our allies simply by the utterance of one simple phrase then we may overlook many loyal supporters. (That applies to any solidarity phrase, in any situation)
In no way did my article blame the victims for the terror. “No act of journalism warrants bloodshed.” Do I judge him, yes. I demonstrated admiration for his fierce belief to free speech. Do I judge the magazine, yes. I didn’t like its style of journalism.
You are indeed entitled not to like this style of journalism. That’s fine, few did anyway, the paper was printed to something like 50,000 exemplars after all. I just think that it is possible to both “not like this style of journalism” and share a hashtag. I hope that you do realize, Heather, that, not really by not sharing this hashtag, but rather more by spending considerable time and energy explaining why it’s okay for you not to share it and still be a nice person, you are just literally slapping a whole nation, a nation that’s in tater and on its knee in the face? Don’t take this personally Heather, but maybe you don’t understand or love France as much as you believe you do.
I am French and Pagan. I never liked Charlie Hebdo and its editorial choices. Yes, I think “They were racist as hell”. I am not Charlie, but I’m very sad of what happened though. They didn’t deserve to die, they only deserved to be told again and again that their “freedom of speech” was racism, sexism and “religiophobia”. Because freedom of speech implies we can be criticized by the freedom of speech of the others. I can’t say “Je suis Charlie” without betraying myself and losing my integrity. But I mourn for the victims, and for innocent muslims who are going to pay for something they didn’t do and would never have done.
Pas forcément d’accord avec toi, mais au moins je respecte ton intégrité morale et ton honneteté. C’est vrai qu’il y a tellement de gens qui se mettent quasiment a vénérer Charlie alors qu’avant ils en avaient rien a foutre (comme a récemment dis Willem). Je trouve aussi que la version d´tournée de “C’est dur d’etre aimé parv des cons” est brilliante.
P.S: J’ai aussi laissé coulé pas mald e larmes, spéciallement pour Cabu…
Exactly. Thank you.
How about we just say #ThisIsNotAcceptable?
We don’t need to identify ourselves as being Charlie, Voltaire or Ahmed. As has been pointed out, these people or groups had their faults too and by going along with the #IAm trend we get whole discussions about why the #person is bad which only leads us away from the core issue or some assholes behaving like assholes.
That is true, but on the other hand it can also been useful, showing that, regardless of any moral judgement, one individual can associate themselves in sympathy for a victim. It is maybe a bit naive, but as I started being seriously disturbed by everything that was happening in Paris, just this simple hashtag really made me feel better. One of the reason why the present post vexes me somehow.
I read this morning that one of the surviving cartoonists said “We vomit on these new “friends” of Charlie Hebdo” — well, that is appreciation, eh? I don’t agree with how the magazine characterized everything, but it WAS satire, sarcasm — meant to be biting to make a point. It is and should be illegal to murder someone for offending you. After all, I don’t get a free pass to go slice off Ann Coulter’s tongue, do I?
Exactly. Those guys were, are still are serious about the way they viewed society at large. They had a vision, an ideal and several of them died for it.
Of course we can separate individual content from the magazine’s philosophy (well, if you believe in freedom of expression). Religion (any) becomes dangerous if it can not accept criticism, or even being made fun of. I find it very disappointing and saddening that the Wild Hunt is unable to offer solidarity for the victims. Instead of compassion, here is criticism of a very courageous journal and the people who have lost their lives in a most brutal way, and all those who loved them in their grief. Surely this is the time for mourning.
I also can’t understand why the slaughter of shoppers in the kosher supermarket isn’t even mentioned.
#Je Suis Charlie
I also can’t understand why the slaughter of shoppers in the kosher supermarket isn’t even mentioned.
By whom?
Because it’s just one more incident of anti-Semitism happening, still, in Europe.
http://tabletmag.com/scroll/188204/the-frightening-reality-for-the-jews-of-france
By whom? Well, by the author, namely Heather Greene.
Thank you so much! I really appreciate this kind of support!
regarding the kosher shop attack, maybe it’s something to do with the fact that news travel slower to the other side of the ocean but yes, it has been confirmed that it is linked with the Charlie Hebdo shootings.
Sure. As far as the attack in the kosher market, no, it’s been in the footage shown here constantly since yesterday.
Charlie Hebdo is just continuing in the age-old tradition of satire that the Celts employed to great effect so long ago. Je suis Charlie.
I appreciate the feedback and discussion here as always. To be clear, at no point, did I mean to imply that I have no compassion for the victims, the families and the country as a whole. Although others might disagree, I see that as a different issue.
We can fiercely support freedom of speech and Charlie Hebdo’s right to publish, mourn the unnecessary human loss and rally with the French community. We can do all of that equally effectively with or without using the words “Je suis Charlie.” I personally choose to do all of that without using the phrase.
I borrowed this idea from Frank Herbert’s “Dune”: what if the worlds religions would all agree to stop claiming they have the only path?
“Can we stand in silent vigil for the victims, but not necessarily endorse their work?”
Yes, we can. Je suis Charlie.
Thank you for your sympathy and decency.
I just watched the movie “Agora” the other day and it brought home to me
the long history of “You insulted my god!” kind of violence. I feel
that those who kill because they feel their god was insulted….those
people have very low self-esteem. They think they cannot effect any
change without violence, and when they commit that violence, they do
violence to their own Souls. In Alexandria (as shown in the movie)
these kinds of “my god is the only god you are allowed to worship and no
questions are allowed to be asked or you die” is the bane of so-called
“civilization.” People whose gods can’t take a joke must live in fear
constantly. And of course, these emotions are manipulated by politicans
who want to control people for their own ends. This all brings home to
me that the hallmark of the Aquarian Age (that is being born) is a
tolerance for all beliefs and faiths as well as an allowance of the
freedom to think and to question our assumptions of all kinds.
The latest studies actually show that violent criminals have an absurdly high self – esteem, but no sense of self – critique. The self – esteem movement has bred a generation of narcissists.
Indeed. I can’t stand those who can’t stand for themselves and still take an “holier than thou” attitude on the grounds of their religion.