French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has reached a level of worldwide popularity that the publication has never before seen. Unfortunately, this newfound popularity comes as a result of the Jan. 7 murder of eight people who worked for the magazine by a branch of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda from Yemen. The victims included the editor Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier. Also killed on the scene were two police officers, and 11 were left wounded.
Charlie Hebdo is known for its offensive, satirical material. The staff of Charlie Hebdo denies being a racist publication, claiming to target all races equally. They do not, however, deny the mockery of religion, stating their support of secularism in France. The top editor of the magazine, Gerard Biard, describes the publication as “atheist...secularist...democratic.” But it is cowardly to stand behind the word “satire” and use it as an excuse to be racist or discriminatory toward religion.
When confronted by journalist Scott Sayare about the Islamophobic material published in an area where tension between the French and French Arabs already exists, Biard responded with “the Arabs in France are not Muslims.” In other words, Sayare says, Biard essentially holds that “in this secular, assimilationist nation [Arabs] would be well served to renounce whatever attachment they may feel to Islam,” thus blaming French Arabs for any isolation they may be feeling living in France.
This extreme secularism is incredibly hypocritical coming from a publication that condemns extremism in religion. Secularism in government and in the state is not an excuse to force assimilation by oppressing non-natives.
Charlie Hebdo, a formerly low-traffic publication, now has the support of millions all across the world, who are speaking out against terrorism and the attack on freedom of speech, and have created a popular Twitter hashtag “#JeSuisCharlie” (or “I Am Charlie”) in support of the magazine. But what many people seem to be overlooking is the content in the magazine while blindly supporting the idea of freedom of speech.
The problem with the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie is it implies that if one does not stand with this publication, then he or she does not support free speech. One can support freedom of speech and still not support a publication that sets out to offend people by disseminating oppressive ideas. Although I completely support the right to express one’s thoughts and believe the fear of being murdered should not come attached to that expression, I find the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo completely distasteful and repulsive.
It is important to note that the response of an Islamic terrorist group is not representative of the feelings of the entire Muslim population in France. As there are Muslims that were offended by the publication, many Muslims are defending Charlie Hebdo and its right to publish the material they want to publish.
But it is important to recognize that with freedom of speech comes responsibility, and there should be major pushbacks on publications that abuse this freedom. Having the right to write and draw offensive material does not protect one from the criticism of doing so. Muslims face discrimination because of their religion every day in France, and having a publication that outright disrespects their prophet only further alienates them as a population. It is just a tragedy that the response occurred in such a violent and unproductive way.
Lauren Horne is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at l.horne@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | November 9, 2024The University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
