Editor’s note: This column includes references to violence and bigotry. Reader discretion is advised.
Just for a minute, imagine that you are Charlie.
You are kind of a loudmouth. Kind of a dick, depending on who you ask. You spent most of your life speaking out publicly about just about every topic under the sun. You produced a ton of media, wrote, spoke, were interviewed, debated. You always managed to rustle some people’s jimmies.
You don’t do that for fun, or at least not just for fun. Sure, making fun of people, when you are not outright provoking them in the most offensive way possible, does feel amazing, but, first and foremost, you feel like you are on the right side of history. Most people, or at least a very significant amount of people, agree with your takes. This isn’t all that surprising, considering that, besides your most controversial takes, you are just repeating what used to be considered normal by most people not that long ago.
Over time, and despite the increasingly vocal opposition of various demographics you have dunked upon, sometimes gratuitously and disgustingly, you become a fixture of national political discourse. You build up a big media machine and have tons of collaborators. Your support – but even more so, your condemnations of various figures on the other end of the political spectrum – does not go unnoticed. You may be controversial, but everyone knows who you are, and at the end of the day, you’ve never broken any law, so insults and threats are not going to make you stop at this point, right?
Then, one day, a day like any other day at work, some guys shows up, cocks a gun, and shoots you. You end your life in a puddle of your own blood.
Did you deserve it?
Did you have it coming?
Was it all worth it in the end?
No one can really answer these questions. But I wanted you to take a minute, get grounded, and consider this situation from a different perspective, to lower your heart beat, go beyond the emotions and start thinking:
“What if it wasn’t him? What if it was someone else entirely? Would I feel any different?”
As you may guess, these introductory paragraphs were directly inspired by last month’s Charlie Kirk shooting. However, when I was writing these lines, I did not really have in mind the recent murder of an American Christian conservative. I had in mind something completely different, and at the same time, eerily similar.
What occupied my thoughts took place almost a decade ago, on another continent, and yet, besides the fact that the Charlie I was thinking about was not a single guy, but a group of people operating under the name, the basic scenario played out almost the same.
I am, of course, referring to the Charlie Hebdo shootings.
The Charlie Hebdo office following the 2015 attack; photo by Flickr user Quinn Norton, shared via CCBYNC2_0 licence.
I remember it like it was yesterday.
On an otherwise slow winter day, as I sat in my living room in Norway, checking French websites to keep up with the old country’s news, reports of gunfire near Charlie Hebdo’s offices suddenly popped up. In the course of the next few hours, I sat anxiously in front of my computer screen, loading and reloading pages upon pages of various live feeds, only to see the list of victims and the details of this revolting deed become more and more apparent.
After a while, it had become too much. I could barely stand still. I was literally walking in circles in my living room, groaning like a caged animal. I had to physically distance myself from what was happening, so I got out, walked under the snow over the bridge that stood right in front of my apartment, and took the cable car up to the mountains.
I tramped around in the snow, in the direction of the nearest peak, a grayish mass of mist and snow only just dimly lit by the dark blue southern sky, and I stood there for a while. I had to physically remove myself from the world, from humanity, for a little while, just to not utterly lose my mind. I don’t quite recall how long I stayed, but before departing, I snapped a picture of this desolate landscape which so eerily reflected my despondent state of mind.
When I came down from the mountains, I walked straight to the liquor store, snatched a bottle of French red wine, bought a red rose at the flower shop, and headed to the harbor, to a local funeral monument erected to the memory of a crew of French and Norwegian arctic explorers. This was not quite the monument to the unknown soldier, but good enough. I opened the bottle, chugged a few rounds, before spilling some more on the stone, and leaving the bottle alongside the flower.
Then I came back home to find out that the grief that I and many others were so intensively experiencing was not exactly being shared by everyone active on the world wide web. Although there were instances of some Muslims celebrating or excusing the attacks, I sadly cannot say that they surprised me much. What shocked me, however, was the flood of hostile comments stemming, for the most part, from leftists and progressives.
As the bodies of the journalists and cartoonists shot in cold blood by the Islamist duo were still warm, and the attackers roamed free, I witnessed something as utterly bizarre as it was disturbing: hordes of people, mostly Americans it seemed, who likely had never heard of Charlie Hebdo until just a few hours before, were starting to clamor high and wide about how “problematic,” if not outright bigoted and racist, the magazine was.
The screeds being posted on social media generally included captions of French-language cartoons taken out of context, misunderstood, or analyzed through a woefully distorted ideological lens. To me, it truly was mind-shattering to see maybe the most leftist-libertarian publication I knew of, a real institution in my country of birth, being depicted as some sort of oppressive far-right machine.
For these people, decades of promoting hard left ideas, espousing rebellious counter-cultural causes, and reporting on all matters of niche, progressive issues did not seem to matter. The Charlie Hebdo team had published a couple drawings deemed insulting to members of a protected class, so they had to be the bad guys, right?
Experiencing such a combination of heartless outcry and absurd nearsightedness soured me on the left in a way I did not think possible. Yet, somehow, I am thankful that I was able to see for myself how partisan thinking can twist the minds of just about everyone. All it takes is for just a few loud people to label something or someone as an enemy, and critical thinking gets tossed out of the window. In the end, it only further entrenches the offended parties into deepening antagonistic outlooks that take hold and quickly become the basis for new, twisted forms of normativities.
Four individuals killed because of their speech. Clockwise, from bottom left: Charb, Cabu, Tignous, and Charlie Kirk. First three via CCBYSA3_0 licence. C. Kirk photo by Flickr user Gage Skidmore, shared via CCBYSA4_0 licence.
So, when Charlie Kirk was murdered, I was not surprised to see a similar dynamic play out. After all, deep down, both Charlies, Hebdo and Kirk, played pretty much the same game: riling up people, both for laughs and to score political points. Yes, I am aware of some salient differences between the two: Kirk was a political activist first and foremost, while Charlie Hebdo is a satirical/news outlet; Kirk’s ideology was rooted in Christian conservatism, while Charlie Hebdo was staffed by anarchists and other left-libertarians. Yet fundamentally, they both met with the same fate: they were murdered in cold blood because their speech was deemed dangerous.
Dangerous?
Although I have decided to stand up for the concept of free speech in this article, I am not going to pretend that either Charlie Kirk or Charlie Hebdo never expressed or advocated for contentious ideas. Kirk, a Christian nationalist, had a vision for America and the West that many, me included, found repulsive. His constant attacks on women and reproductive rights, especially, were, in my opinion, nothing short of vile.
As for Charlie Hebdo, controversies abound as well. While I will be the first to say that I am partial to their brand of abrasive humor, even I have to admit that the magazine does not always get it right. In particular, its illustrators routinely satirize tragedies (such the Gisèle Pelicot case), and in the process often make use of sexist or homophobic language or crude, vulgar imagery that generates controversy even within the most radical French free speech circles.
In both cases, offensive speech rooted in religious/anti-religious ideologies could be said to be potentially damaging: it can normalize noxious behavior and beliefs or contribute to a sense of detachment towards real life people who are often at risk of being victimized. Still, were Charlie Kirk and Charlie Hebdo truly unique or exceptional in this?
It is no secret that in the West, the past few years have been characterized by a rise of political polarization, on all sides of the political spectrum. As societal, personal, aesthetical, geographical, and religious bonds that ounce linked significant demographics together unravel further and further, is it truly fair to point the finger to specific actors? And is it fair to point the finger at specific actors that lie dead in body bags? Bodies of people who, at the end of the day, reflected the values and ideals of significant segments of the population and never broke any laws?
Political slogans on the salls at the University of Wisconsin; photo by Flickr user Fibbonaci Blue, shared via CCBY4_0 licence.
In the case of the Charlie Kirk, isn’t the mockery, downplaying, and outright celebration of his murder damaging? Isn’t shooting someone in cold blood worse than advocating for regressive and coercive values? Also, is reacting to the death of an individual who openly loathed empathy with lack of empathy not granting him one last win? Is it wise to follow the ruleset of someone you loathed? Is it healthy for your soul to get accustomed to murder?
Shortly after Kirk’s assassination, one Instagram account I follow, run by a left-wing user in the Pacific Northwest, shared a Tiktok of some social media personality declaring to his audience that it was no big deal if they were happy that Kirk died. “You are not celebrating death, you are celebrating the end of harm,” he said, staring at the camera with an emotionless face. How could this guy be so oblivious? I thought. Did he not realize how Kirk’s death and the leftist mockery/celebration thereof was already being instrumentalized to manufacture further divisions and potentially cause a lot more harm than anything that could be attributed to Kirk himself?
Similarly, while Charlie Hebdo, prior to 2015, had been experiencing significant financial problems, issue 1178 (the one with the famous “everything is forgiven” cover), published just a week following the Islamist terrorist attack which left 12 people dead, sold nearly 8 million copies, an absolute record in French press history. In the years and months that followed, the magazine’s popularity began to wane, but today, ten years later, they can still boast of significantly higher sales than prior to the tragedy that befell them.
Nevertheless, as much as it pains me to admit it, the Charlie Hebdo attacks, unlike Charlie Kirk’s murder, was at least partially successful. Yes, for a very short while, posting “Je suis Charlie” on one’s social media and sharing the magazine’s offensive cartoons was popular, at least within select demographics. But the terror attack, which was soon followed by numerous even more gruesome ones, managed, in practice, to severely restrict any criticism or mockery relating to Islam.
Although Charlie Hebdo reprinted the Muhammed caricatures in 2020, to mark the opening of the trial against surviving members and supporters of the terror cell that had targeted the magazine, no other publications followed suit. Weeks later (as I previously wrote), Samuel Paty, a French high-school teacher, displayed two of those cartoons to his students in ethics class, as he was accustomed to, giving the opportunity for those who might object to look away or even momentarily leave class. Notwithstanding these precautions, words got out about the class, amplified and distorted on social media, until just ten days later, a teenage Russian Jihadist got to Paty and beheaded him outside his school.
Since then, self-censorship has become a poignant force in France. Few seem to be willing to make use of their constitutionally-mandated right to free speech when it comes to satirizing Islam and mocking its religious figures. Even Charlie Hebdo appears to have retreated from this kind of speech. In this aspect, the fates of Charlie Kirk and Charlie Hebdo differ significantly.
Although critics of Charlie Hebdo regularly depict the magazine as being state-backed and funneling government-approved secularist propaganda, the publication’s only link to the state comes in the form of a limited financial support scheme that benefits most French printed media. Besides this, the French president took part in the national march in support of Charlie Hebdo, where, after leading a procession of international heads of state, he publicly met with surviving members of the magazine and reiterated his and the government’s support for freedom of speech.
The crowd at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service; photo by Flickr user Gage Skidmore, shared via CCBYSA4_0 licence.
These largely symbolic acts pale in comparison with the degree of support and co-opting displayed by the US government following Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Taking advantage of reports indicating that Kirk’s shooter espoused leftist ideology, the Trump administration has spent huge resources framing the murder as a partisan act targeting Christians and conservatives. In the process, they elevated Kirk to what can only be described as MAGA sainthood and Trumpian martyrdom, and began to use his murder to further expedite their politically and religiously obscurantist policies, seemingly unstoppably.
There is some level of cosmic irony in the fact that in both the Charlie Hebdo and the Charlie Kirk cases, while targets stood on completely adverse sides of the political spectrum, the ultimate result of terror was the same: the strengthening of regressive religious forces, which, as sobering a thought as it is, reflects the preferences of a significant section of the public.
How can we, members of minority faiths, advocates of secularism, and opponents of theocratic dominions, fight back?
First of all, acknowledge the hard truth: we are not in a position of power, and we need to act accordingly. Reject the use of violence, full stop. This includes callously calling for violent acts and retribution as well making light of imperfect victims on the other end of the political spectrum. This kind of behavior is radioactive and will only serve to repel normal people who might otherwise become inclined to see things our way.
Second, reject ideological purity spiraling. Instead of parroting one’s presumed ideological superiority and go after people who are not towing the party line on every single issue making the ominicause this week, try being pragmatic. Try asking yourself, is pushing away people who agree with you 75% of the time worth it, when it leads to nothing but further ideological entrenchment, drifting away from mainstream discourse, and ultimately, losing?
Thirdly, and lastly, take on the challenge Kirk (among others) presented you with. One can whine all day long about how Kirk and other right wing influencers/activists only got popular because of shadowy financing, the truth remains that by confronting their adversaries on hostile ground over years and years, they were able to garner lasting fame, support, and influence. Notwithstanding the attempts at cancellation, online censorship, deplatforming and other hostile reactions, they marched on and ended up on the top.
This latest point might actually be the one thing we who stood against Kirk’s ideas could actually learn from him: if it is possible to build a huge support base even when championing divisive, potentially harmful ideas, and repeatedly meeting outright hostility, surely, it should be possible to accomplish just as much when advocating for the common good in an accommodating, earnest, and smart fashion? True, Kirk’s assassination and the global political climate surrounding and originating from it will not make this easy, but what other options are there?
If this whole debacle demonstrated something, it is that violence only causes disservice to political discourse and does not bring about positive change. So, better start rolling up your sleeves, raise your voice, use your head, and may you never let your heart grow cold.
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.