One year on from the terrorist attack, Charlie Hebdo remains misunderstood
How can the drawing of an old, bearded man wearing a cloak stained with blood and carrying a Kalashnikov cause worldwide waves of outrage?
On Wednesday, Charlie Hebdo released its latest edition, marking the one-year anniversary of the attacks on the French satirical magazine. The cartoon on its cover was accompanied by the text: ‘One year on, the assassin is still out there.’ Judging by the reactions it has provoked so far, one year on, Charlie Hebdo is still misunderstood.
Charlie Hebdo is hated and condemned by many, but few of its loudest critics actually understand its cartoons. Debates that followed the Islamist attack that killed 12 people including most of the magazine’s journalists were revived for its one-year anniversary, suggesting many have not even read a single edition of the magazine in its entirety.
The most common misconception about Charlie Hebdo is that it attacks religious individuals. In fact, Charlie Hebdo is a political satire magazine. It does not attack any religion as a personal faith but ridicules every politicised and institutionalised form of it – be it the Vatican or the more extreme case of the Islamic State. Islam is not in the crosshairs; the ideology that exploits it, Islamism, is.
The latest example of this misinterpretation is the Vatican newspaper’s response to Charlie Hebdo’s latest cover, featuring the aforementioned old man; a gun-wielding terrorist with the religious symbol of the ‘all-seeing Eye of God’ hovering above his head.
The newspaper criticised Charlie Hebdo’s mockery of religion and accused the magazine of disrespecting believers’ faith in God. Last year, a few days after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Pope Francis told journalists on his Asia tour: ‘To kill in the name of God is an absurdity.’ Charlie Hebdo agrees – in fact, this is precisely what the cartoonists have been trying to show in their latest absurdist cartoon of God as a terrorist.
Another example of indignant reactions, which have revealed an inaccurate and simplistic understanding of French satire, was the public outcry that followed the release of the Aylan Kurdi cartoon in September. Charlie Hebdo was accused of mocking the death of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi, a Kurdish Syrian who’s drowning became a symbol of the refugee crisis.
The drawing, which showed the little boy lying face down in the sand next to a McDonalds sign, was meant to depict the absurdity behind the tragedy: merciless Europeans living in peace, luxury and obesity while refugees silently die on their way to what they see as paradise.
France has a long tradition of absurdist satire that dates back to before the French Revolution and uses deliberately provocative and uncensored images to get across its message. The single most defining characteristic of a satirical cartoon is precisely its visual exaggeration of human features and flaws. Without the blunt, uncut and crass nature of the drawings, they would not qualify as a caricature.
Furthermore, many people have confused absurdism with racism and unjustly labelled Charlie Hebdo as racist. One brief look at its website shows part of the magazine’s mission is to defend ‘a society free of racism’.
There is a profound difference between racist or anti-religious hate-speech and satirical cartoons. While the former attacks and incites hatred against ethnic, cultural and religious minorities, the latter mocks powerful elites which are henpecking societies and cultures, as well as the abstract concepts to which they adhere.
Power can come in many forms: political, commercial and religious. Charlie Hebdo’s favourite targets therefore reach from right-wing politicians and manifestations of capitalist doctrines to authorities of the two most popular and hence powerful religions on the planet: Christianity and Islam.
Literally every word that ends in ‘-phobic’ has been used to describe Charlie Hebdo. Yes, Charlie Hebdo might be many things – indecent, blasphemous and politically incorrect. But some things it is definitely not, namely, xenophobic, homophobic and Islamophobic.
Indeed, it has demonstrated the courage to stand up for the weakest and least privileged members of society by mocking the most powerful and thereby haling them to act.
We should commemorate these courageous cartoonists by daring to keep laughing and making people laugh, at everyone and everything. We should continue to draw, to write and to speak our minds.
And most importantly, we should never stop defending those who risk their lives fighting for these rights such as Salman Rushdie, Raif Badawi and Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. If you feel offended, fight back – but please do so with words, not with Kalashnikovs – and don’t insist that others share your offence.
Julia Ebner is a research assistant at Quilliam focussing on EU counter-extremism efforts. Follow her on Twitter.
50 Responses to “Charlie Hebdo’s critics still don’t understand French satire”
Paul Harrison
You’ve just managed to contradict yourself there – you have stated you have friends who are arabic and are for all intense and purposes western, yet defended are cartoon that implies all arabs grow up to be sex offenders.
“No-one thinks their race might nonetheless cause them to start sexually assaulting women”
yet that is exactly what the cartoon implies.
“I don’t care if the portrayal of Mohammed is insulting”
Of course you don’t – you aren’t Muslim – that’s like saying ‘I don’t care if black people find n*****r insulting’.
” In a free society, you don’t get to never be insulted.”
True, but you do expect to not have your freedom impinged upon. Publications that promote the stereotype that certain groups grow up to be sex offenders are affecting the liberty of that group of people. You appear to be confusing freedom of speech and speech free from consequence.
“If they think they can try and stop people drawing cartoons”
Sorry, but when did they stop people publishing cartoons? Want they want to do is stop cartoons that are designed to be intentionally inflammatory and promote negative stereotypes which in turn affect innocent people. If they were regularly publishing cartoons portraying black people as monkeys would we be having this discussion?
“The whole point is that if I say something that people don’t like,
they’re entirely free to avoid me and never listen to me again.”
Except in this instance they aren’t – that’s the point you are missing. Because they can avoid the publication – but they cannot avoid the hatred that cartoons such as the one in Hebdo feed. That’s the whole point – when freedom of speech affects the freedom of other people it is no longer free. If I stand in the middle of a crowded theatre and scream FIRE and people die in the ensuing stampede do i get to state ‘well, i was only exercising my right to free speech’? No, because my actions were reckless and impacted the lives of others. Implying that a dead child will grow to be a sex offender is reckless – it implies that all refugees are future sex offenders, which, whether you like it or not, impacts the lives of others. Freedom of speech is different to speech free from consequence.
“They have no way of avoiding it so your right to do it really IS infringing on their right to safety.”
Remind me again how you avoid a society that is being taught to hate and fear you?
“The line is drawn where your freedom to express outrage starts infringing on other people’s rights.”
Oh the Irony!!!!! So if expressing your outrage impacts others rights that’s where you draw the line – but expressing freedom of speech when it impacts others rights is completely fine!
“Once you cross that line, you can expect a vicious pushback.”
Irony overload! So you argument is – encouraging xenophobia, which negatively impacts many peoples lives, is totally acceptable, however if those people who are being impacted, if they become offended to the point of action that is totally unacceptable – but responding to that action with a ‘vicious pushback’ because it may impact your ability to continue to encourage xenophobia, that’s absolutely fine! Brilliant.
“There was routinely violence as well”
Do you want to discuss the violence against refugees that cartoons such as the one in Hebdo help feed? I don’t support violence in any form but please don’t patronise everyone by claiming it is one sided. Xenophobic publications feed hatred and violence, and whilst I’d never support violence to combat them it doesn’t change the fact that portraying a dead refugee child as a future sex offender drawn to resemble a mix between a pig and a monkey is xenophobic and intentionally inflammatory.
chizwoz
The cartoon doesn’t imply arabs. It implies muslims. You’re REALLY having trouble with the separating of variables on that. It’s seriously not that hard a distinction between race and culture or religion.
The comparison with “nigger” is flawed. Racism is entirely different from anti-theism. As I pointed out, they might well be insulted by the depiction of mohammed, but I’m insulted by what’s taught in their holy book. You can’t draw that same analogy with a race because a race doesn’t contain beliefs and propositions like a religion does. Once again, you’re REALLY struggling with a basic separation of race and religion here. They’re entirely different but at some point in your thinking (I’m not sure at what point), you’re making them the same.
No, cartoons do not affect their liberty in the slightest. If it wasn’t for the outrage in response to them, most people wouldn’t even know these cartoons existed.
Once again, if these cartoons can affect THEIR liberty, then the preachings in the Quran can affect MY liberty as an atheist in exactly the same way.
It’s utter nonsense that the cartoons feed hatred. Where is this similar hatred for all of the other things Charlie Hebdo mocked then? Where is the mass hatred for Mormons because of the “Book of Mormon” play?
Christianity is constantly mocked in western media, usually by non-religious people. Where is this hatred for christians?
It’s complete bullshit. It’s not the cartoons that feed hatred. It’s the response by muslims to the cartoons that feed hatred. Christians aren’t generally hated because they respond in a civlized manner.
Paul Harrison
It implies refugee – last time I checked refugee does not define a religion but does define a place – could you clarify what defines the body of the dead child as being muslim? Because I must have missed that.
“The comparison with “nigger” is flawed. Racism is entirely different from anti-theism”
yet its no different from xenophobia – which this is. But do please explain why racism is ‘completely’ different from anti-theism, I’m curious as to how hared and oppresion based on relihgion is OK but based on skin color isn’t.
“As I pointed out, they might well be insulted by the depiction of
mohammed, but I’m insulted by what’s taught in their holy book. ”
Your comparison is flawed – there is no equivalence in that comparison. Belittling a minorities culture, portraying it and its followers as ignorant, as rapists, as inherently violent deeply impacts the social perception that the majority feel towards that group. This leads to hatred, to xenophobia, to religous intolerance. You not liking a book makes frankly, fuck all difference to anyone.
“You can’t draw that same analogy with a race because a race doesn’t contain beliefs and propositions like a religion does.”
Really ? Do prey tell what the beliefs of a religion of over a billion people are then – lets pick one that you are more familiar with. Christians – for or against homosexuals? What? You mean you cannot say because so many of them interpret their religion in different ways! You don’t say! You mean you cannot just stereotype them all together? Remind me again how racial stereotyping based on ignorance is different to religous stereotyping based on ignorance. Once again, just to remind you, the cartoon portrayed a refugee – there was no mention of religion.
“No, cartoons do not affect their liberty in the slightest.”
Muslims will be over the moon to know that the white person says that they are not impacted by islamophobia in the slightest. Perhaps you could inform the Jews that the cartoons in Der Sturmer had no impact on them, they will be most pleased to hear.
” If it wasn’t for the outrage in response to them, most people wouldn’t even know these cartoons existed.”
Which is kind if the point – Hebdo made them offensive in order to gain attention. And they are well known so your hypothetical world where they aren’t is irrelevant. I may as well argue ‘if everyne could have a cuddle and get on we wouldn’t have this problem’ – its a scenario that doesn’t exist so as an argument its irrelevant.
“Once again, if these cartoons can affect THEIR liberty, then the
preachings in the Quran can affect MY liberty as an atheist in exactly
the same way.”
Struggling with the equivalency thing again aren’t we. When that book threatens your day to day life you can complain. When there are as many Islamic Extremists as racists in your country then feel free to be as outraged as you like. You also appaear to not understand the difference between what has been published and what should be published – the Quran was published quite a while ago, you can’t decide not to have it exist – you can decide not to create drawings of dead children as sex offenders.
“It’s utter nonsense that the cartoons feed hatred.”
Yeah – when has cartoons ever been used to feed hatred? Apart from all the times in history its been used to feed hatred of course!
“Where is this similar hatred for all of the other things Charlie Hebdo mocked then?”
First of all – equivalency, mocking Christians in France is not equivalent to mocking Muslims – Christians hold all the power Muslims don’t – I don’t see White Supremacists demanding Christians leave France. Once again the purpose of Satire is to mock the powerful not the powerless. I’m also pretty sure that if Hebdo portrayed Anne Frank as a future sex offender the outrage was be just as substantial. Oh sorry – my mistake, it took something nowhere near as offensive as that http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html – you were saying?
“Where is the mass hatred for Mormons because of the “Book of Mormon” play?”
I must have missed all of the Mormon hate crimes in the UK. Where there many? Could you point out when the French national Front were demanding the expulsion of all mormons? I must have missed that too. I didn’t realise that the Mormons were such a predominant target of the BNP and EDL. You really struggle with the equivalency thing don’t you/
“Christianity is constantly mocked in western media, usually by non-religious people. Where is this hatred for christians?”
You are talking about Christian nations. White people are frequently mocked on TV everyone has a good laugh when Black comedians talk about how White people are bad dancers right! So its totally the same when Bernard Manning used to do his routines right. Right?
” It’s not the cartoons that feed hatred.”
Yep why would anyone garner a negative view of refugees from a media that portrays them all as future sex offenders – what a presposterous idea!
“Christians aren’t generally hated because they respond in a civlized manner.”
Of course they do – when someone belittles them it has absolutely zero impact – same as when someone takes the pee out of white folks. They hold a position of privilege and power – every UK Prime Minister has been Christian. Claiming equivalency between the treatment of Christians and Mulsims in Europe is beyond ridiculous.
chizwoz
What clarifies the dead child as a muslim is that in the countries these people come from, you’re generally indoctrinated from birth so you don’t have a choice in your religion. I actually don’t personally consider children to have a religion at all. I reject the concept entirely. But Charlie Hebdo are obviously trying to satirise public opinion, so it’s ok for them to just reflect the public delusion that children do have a religion I guess.
Xenophobia isn’t 1 thing, it’s a range of things. Some xenophobia is entirely rational, some isn’t. I already explained how racism is different from anti-theism. First of all, race is an immutable part of your identity, religion isn’t. You can give it up whenever you want. You also probably wouldn’t have a religion if it weren’t for your childhood indoctrination. The second key difference being that religions contain beliefs and propositions, races don’t. Religions therefore have a causal influence in the world in a way that race doesn’t. It’s essential it has less rights and respect as a concept for that reason.
Once again: No, cartoon depictions themselves don’t force the majority to think anything. People are not braindead simpletons who can be convinced of a worldview just from seeing cartoons. Otherwise it would have the same affect when they mocked christianity (after all christianity is a minority in quite a few european countries now). It’s the response TO the cartoons that creates animosity. If it was just a general kind of xenophobia, you have to explain why the same attitudes aren’t also felt towards other religions. Where are the anti-Sikh movements in the west? The anti-Hindu movements? They don’t exist.
And me “not liking a book” makes fuck all difference? Are you serious? Do you have any clue how apostates and non-believers are treated in muslim communities? Have you not followed the series of murders in muslim countries of atheists who dared to speak out? The beliefs coming from these medieval holy books have a hell of a lot more effect than some cartoons. And they also happen to be believed by and practiced by millions and millions of people (including being part of the actual state policy in a number of countries). Whereas we have……1 magazine drawing cartoons 😐
The Quran has done a hell of a lot more damage than any cartoon ever has.
Paul Harrison
Aylun comes from Syria – where 10% of the population are Christian because of “the disproportionate oppresion against them 18% of Syrian refugees are Christian- so remind me again what defines his religion in the Cartoon. Tell me again about how ‘these people’ are indoctrinated – its not maing yu sound like a bigot in the slightest!
“But Charlie Hebdo are obviously trying to satirise public opinion”
Oh its obvious is it? Nothing says satirising public opinion quite like portraying a dead toddler as a sex offender.
“Some xenophobia is entirely rational”
No its not – you can be afraid of a regime or a countries military or their leaders megalomania – to be afraid of someone based purely on their country of birth is the very definition of irrational.
“First of all, race is an immutable part of your identity, religion isn’t.”
You just claimed that they were indoctrinated from birth! So people should change their entire belief structure in order to avoid oppression – seems legit!
“and don’t actually have to make it obvious to the world at all, if you
wanted you could completely avoid telling the world what religion you
subscribe to”
Yeah – its all your fault for letting people know your religion – same as homophobia – all the gays fault!
“You also probably wouldn’t have a religion if it weren’t for your childhood indoctrination.”
Yeah no such thing as adult conversions!
“Religions therefore have a causal influence in the world in a way that race doesn’t.”
Your race doesn’t impact you in any way? Doesn’t affect your view of the world? Really?
Not that any of this matters because the cartoon attacked refugees – not religions – you cannot change your country of birth so your entire argument is irrelevant.
“No, cartoon depictions themselves don’t force the majority to think anything.”
Who claimed cartoons they were solely responsible? they are certainly part of the problem though.
“Once again, if it wasn’t for the backlash, most people would never even heard of these cartoons.”
Chicken and egg – the cartoons are made to be as offensive as possible in order to bring them to the public attention.
“people are not braindead simpletons who can be convinced of a worldview just from seeing cartoons.”
Yeah – Media has no affect on us at all. Its not like companies spend billions each year pumping information into the media sector in order to influence us is it.
“Otherwise it would have the same affect when they mocked christianity
(after all christianity is a minority in quite a few european countries
now)”
you really don’t get this equivalency thing do you – can you name some of these European nations where christianity is a minority to other religions please.
It may be to a lack of belief, but not to other religions – therefore it is the predominant religion because atheism is not a religion.
“Where are the anti-Sikh movements in the west?”
Last time I checked the BNP ain’t to cool about the Sikhs either – sorry but can you point to the Neo Nazi’s that a Sikh friendly please? Could you also point to where the Media is claiming that Sikhs are going to take over our countries.
“”if you’re rude to minorities, it automatically leads to hatred”
Good job i never said that then isn’t it. What I said is that if you paint minorities with a broad brush that depicts them as deeply negative (such as suggesting they all grow up to be sex offenders) then that does breed hatred. Take a look at 1930s Germany.
“Do you have any clue how apostates and non-believers are treated in muslim communities?”
I lived in Indonesia for eight months – they were fucking lovely to me actually. Judging by the stupidity of that comment I’m guessing you have never lived in a Muslim community and never will – so not liking a book makes fuck all difference o your life.
“Have you not followed the series of murders in muslim countries of atheists who dared to speak out?”
Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation on the planet – how many atheists have they killed for speaking out exactly?
“The beliefs coming from these medieval holy books have a hell of a lot more effect than some cartoons.”
You argument is ‘that is worse so this is OK’ – Really? Sorry but when did two wrongs become a right exactly?
“And they also happen to be believed by and practiced by millions and
millions of people (including being part of the actual state policy in a
number of countries)”
So? There are millions of people that support Christianity – do you want to play the ‘whose holy book says the most deplorable crap’ game, because they are both very bad. No country on earth follows either the Quran or the Bible to the letter – if they did Slavery would be out in the open and rife in those countries (Jesus had no issue with Slave owners at all – even tells them they will get into heaven). Every single country with a predominant religion choses to interpret that religion to suit its needs, they interpret how much input it should have to fit its needs. Religion is nothing more than an enabler for power, in its absence something else is found – as the likes of Hitler and Stalin proved so convincingly.
“Whereas we have……1 magazine drawing cartoons” – yep the only anti islamic media out there in the whole of France is a single lonely cartoon. Riiiiiight.
“The Quran has done a hell of a lot more damage than any cartoon ever has.”
Cancer has killed more people than Ebola – so that means Ebola isn’t that bad right? That’s how your logic works right?