Marsha Coran

May 6, 2015

Research Paper

“Our job is not to defend freedom of speech, but without [it], we are dead. I prefer to die

than live like a rat,” said Stephane Charbonnier, Editor in Chief of French newspaper Charlie

Hebdo. Two years after her bold statement, Islamic extremists opened fire on the Charlie Hebdo

office and killed twelve people including Charbonnier.

Charlie Hebdo​ is a French ​satirical​ weekly magazine, publishing cartoons, polemics, and

jokes. The publication describes itself as above all ​secular​ and ​atheist​, ​far-left-wing​, and

anti-racist​ publishing articles about the ​extreme right​,​ religion, ​politics​, ​culture​, etc. Satirical

religious cartoons are some of the most popular cartoons in Charlie Hebdo. One cartoon that is

particularly popular is a drawing of a weeping prophet Muhammad that was published for the

first time in 2006. This drawing was a part of a series of cartoons that were published in 2011.

To Islamic extremists, these cartoons were offensive and disrespectful to the holy Elijah

Muhammad. Thus, in 2011, these extremists hacked Charlie Hebdo’s website. However, this was

not the most harmful assault on the publication. ​On January 7, 2015 twelve people were killed in

the office of Charlie Hebdo. ​It was the deadliest terror attack in France since 1961 during the

Algerian war.

Many conflicts surround this situation. One important conflict is the question as to why

certain people identify themselves as ​“ I am Charlie” and others claim “ I am not Charlie.” The

significance of this cannot be understated. ​ These people do not simply say that “ I am pro
Charlie Hebdo” or “ I do not support Charlie Hebdo,” they completely associate or dissociate

themselves with the newspaper.

“To be, or not to be, that has been the question. Specifically, to be, or not to be Charlie.

Since the deadly attacks on the ​Charlie Hebdo​ magazine offices in Paris, media personalities,

pundits, politicians, and celebrities rushed to support Charlie Hebdo and coined the phrase "Je

Suis Charlie" ["I am Charlie"] as a gesture of condolence to those murdered. Meanwhile, others

made it clear that they did not support Charlie Hebdo with the phrase, "Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie"

["I am not Charlie"] in order to “ distance themselves from the satirical magazine's oftentimes

Islamophobic content.” writes Natasha Lennard in Vice News.

People who decide to side with “Je suis Charlie” claim that the freedom of speech has to

exist in the modern world and that such “​cartoons and satire, even the most provocative ones,

remain vital for a healthy civil society,” as says a associate professor in the University of North

Florida, Parvez Ahmed in Huffington Post. There is no doubt that a protection of the right of free

expression and speech involves the necessity to defend what seems offensive and unpleasant

speech. As famous English novelist, journalist, and critic George Orwell said “If liberty means

anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” That is why at

least 3,7 million people participated in anti-terrorism rallies in France on January 11, 2015.

However, a majority of magazines that laud Charlie Hebdo for being courage enough to

publish cartoons with Prophet Muhhamad, including New York Times were not brave enough or

maybe intelligent enough not to publish the cartoons that “were catalyst for the murders,” writes

a Head of the Calhoun School in Manhattan, Steve Nelson in Huffington Post. David Brooks, a

teacher at Yale University and a member of American Academy of Art and Sciences, shares his
idea in the article “I am not Charlie Hebdo.” in the Opinion Pages in NY Times. “If they had

tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two

decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused

them of hate speech. The administrator would have cut financing and shut them down.” He gave

several examples of fired professors from the University of Illinois, the University of Kansas etc,

who lost their job because of teaching the Roman Catholic view on honosexuality or “a harsh

tweet against the N.R.A.” It is not the case only in the United States. Robert Shrimsley, a c​hief

political correspondent and news editor​ at Financial Times says "But the rest of us, like me, who

sit safely in an office in western Europe – or all those in other professions who would never

contemplate taking the kind of risks those French journalists took daily – we are not Charlie. We

are just glad that someone had the courage to be."

Another argument of people who do not identify themselves with Charlie Hebdo talk

about the function of provocations. ​David Brooks ​wrote “When you are 13, it seems daring and

provocative to “epater la bourgeoisie (surprise the bourgeoisie),” to stick a finger in the eye of

authority,to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs.” Saree Makdisi, a ​Professor of English and

Comparative Literature at UCLA, develops his idea in the article ” ‘Je suis Charlie’ makes

matters worse. ” “The great satirists, including Swift, Byron and Moliere, didn’t direct their

barbs at reviled and vulnerable minorities. On the contrary, they used satire to expose the vices

and the flaws of the self-confident and the powerful. Charlie Hebdo’s satire, in contrast,

descended into mere racist taunting and baiting.”

People “Je suis Charlie” do not agree with this argument. They say that any satirical help

break people’s fear. A ​Egyptian political cartoonist SHERIF ARAFA says “​ Joking [about]
something is a defense mechanism to overcome your fear towards it. If people see their leaders

in cartoons, that can help to make them realize they are not gods.” David Brooks agrees with this

opinion “When they [satirists and ridiculers] are effective they help us address our foibles

communally, since laughter is one of the ultimate bonding experiences” and he continues discuss

this point of view in his article in NY Times “In thinking about provocateurs and insulters, we

want to maintain standards of civility and respect while at the same time allowing room for those

creative and challenging folks who are uninhibited by good manners and taste.” He also claims

that there is no need to suppress freedom of speech because it will end with “crude censorship

and strangled conversation.”

Steven Nelson expresses one more reason why people identify themselves ​with a slogan

“ Je ne suis pas Charlie!” He claims that the there exists a lot of similar cases nowadays and “Je

suis” campaign is one one that is discussed on our society. “In the shadows beyond the glaring

spotlight on Charlie Hebdo, Boko Haram fighters reportedly slaughtered 2,000 men, women, and

children in Nigeria,”-says the author. They used young girls captives as suicide bombers. There

is a question why there are no such huge campaigns defending these poor children . Also, he

gives another example, a stoning and beheading of people who accused of adultery or blasphemy

in Saudi Arabia.

As concerns me, I can not definitely identify myself with the slogan “Je suis Charlie” or

“Je ne suis pas Charlie.” From one side, I strongly believe in freedom of expression and I know

that killing people in response to drawing cartoons even if they are offensive is unstable. I totally

agree with the statement from an international media network WhatsOn in UK “​You can never

win in a fight between a pencil and a pistol.”

 However, it is very difficult to understand what are the limits to what can be said, in what

context, and how. Even Charlie Hebdo has its limits. In 2008 the direction of the magazine fired

one of the cartoonists, Maurice Sinet, for an anti-Semitic slur. Is it fair that while French citizens

including the people from government marched for the freedom of speech on January 11, a

famous French satirical comedian Dieudonne M’bala M’bala was arrested because of

anti-Semitic hate speech- a Facebook post containing a slogan “Je suis Charlie” and a name of

one of the Paris gunmen.

Also, I think that the identification with Charlie Hebdo aggravated the “us”/”them”

opposition between the Western Culture and the Muslim East. This cultural and racial logic

exists for a long time. “This binary structure has been used since the late 18th century to justify

the use of large-scale violence against Muslims, from Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt and the

French occupation of Algeria to the current French bombardments of North Africa and Iraq, all

of which at least partly set the stage for the recent violent outburst’” says Saree Makdisi in LA

Times. Now, because of identification with Charlie Hebdo, it became worse. “Je suis Charlie”

makes people believe that Western culture is free, modern, and rational, while Muslim culture is

violent, backward, and irrational. I do not support these ideas of people who are pro Charlie

Hebdo . That is why I can not completely associate or disassociate myself with Charlie Hebdo.

What would this mobilization rallies in France mean after years for the world, and

especially for France? Would it be a reminder to us “ to be legally tolerant toward offensive

voices, even as we are socially discriminating?” Would it be symbol only for commemorating

massacred journalists from Charlie Hebdo or it would be also a preparation for the "war on

radical Islam" that Prime Minister Manuel Valls has claimed? These questions are infinitely
complicated and they have to be discussed comprehensively. To identify his or herself with a

slogan “Je suis Charlie” or “Je ne suis pas Charlie” does not help to develop this conversation, it

limits and retards it.

Every culture, as Western or Muslim cultures, has their own border between what is

tolerant and intolerant, between what is right and what is wrong, where is freedom and where is

its absence.

Exploring the differences and similarities between cultures, religions, and ethnic groups

is a great step in development of the conversation about “Je suis Charlie” and a productive way

to prevent future tragedies such as a massacre on January 7, 2015 in the office of Charlie Hebdo.

It is a better strategy than just “mindlessly celebrating how great ‘we’ are, and how despicable

‘they’ are, all over again.”