Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
I Am Not Charlie and Neither Are You
I am not Charlie.
If I was, I would be dead by now.
It really is that harsh and stark and simple. Every time I see another Facebook meme, banner or plaque saying Je suis Charlie, I think “No, you’re not.” The Charlies of the world are being shot down for speaking truth and persecuted for standing up to injustice and bigotry. They stand up for freedom of speech and the right to offend in an open society and they pay the price of the few for the cowardice of the many.
To say today, the day after, that we are all Charlie is an outrage when we as a society were happy to censor these pictures before they were dripping with blood. There should not have to be a massacre for us to stand up for freedom of speech, and once we are forced to stand that backbone should last more than the obligatory 24 hours.
But I fear that it won’t.
It’s not as if there haven’t been other examples, other Charlies along the way. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh, Lars Vilks, The Jylland Post – these are the names of people who have stood up for freedom and in return had their freedom taken away, all while the world was watching.
Charlie Hebdo makes fun of people and institutions with influence, the underdog speaking truth to power. Some may be offended, but discomfort is a part of the human experience and freedom from offense isn’t nearly as important as freedom of speech. It should be that easy. If we take out the politics, the religion, and the choosing of sides, there should be some basic values that we can all gather around and defend. But no, instead we stand by, time and time again, to see freedom of speech be sacrificed in the name of appeasement. As long as we do not call the culprits out but leave the victims to fend for themselves, we have no right to call ourselves Charlie or to score cheap points through Monday morning quarterbacking.
I was out playing in the snow with my kids when I got the newsflash on my phone: terrorists had shot at least 10 journalists working at a satirical magazine. My first thought was that it was jihadists. My very first thought. This is not a racist impulse. It is the result of being a person who reads the news and knows the world.
Neither Christians nor Jews go on organized killing sprees based on mockery and there was no rampage following the musical entirely dedicated to poking fun at Mormons. The Western world has a problem with radical Islam — or rather radical Islam has a problem with the Western world. In the deafening silence it has festered, growing with each tale of “crazy lone assailants”. One can think whatever one wants about the content of Charlie Hebdo’s satire, but this is not an art review. This is the most important conversation a society can have: about basic human rights, freedoms, and responsibilities. For too long we have accepted the reign of violence and fear, hoping another step back would grant peace. This has to change. As a society we need to establish a baseline of values that we build upon; values we demand ourselves and others to uphold. Not slaying innocent people when we get offended should be one of them. Deciding that freedom for trumps freedom from when it comes to expression ought to be another.
I am not Charlie. I have censored myself on so many occasions for fear of violence, outrage, and loss of livelihood. I feel shame today, along with the hurt and sadness. I feel shame because I know that my self-censorship put all the responsibility for my freedom on the shoulders of these fallen giants, even though I know this should be our common core. In the wake of this massacre I promise to learn. I promise to do better in honor of those who taught me that lesson with their life.
During his speech on September 14th, 2001, George W Bush said that adversity introduces us to ourselves. Now, and in the days following France’s own 9/11, Europe has to confront what it is and decide on what it wishes to be going forward.
The Facebook memes, banners, and plaques should not say I am Charlie, but rather I will be Charlie. Instead of this easy, breezy write-off, they should offer an apology for complacency and a promise to shoulder the responsibility going forward.
I am not Charlie, but I will try to be going forward. I can promise you that much.
Published in General
Thank you, Annika! I appreciate this *pivotal* distinction; but I politely disagree: In your own way, in your *particular* set of circumstances, yes you are. You stand in contradiction to the re-emergence of old, devaluing (possibly personally life-altering) ideas and behaviors…And, you raise your voice/wield your pen/tap your keyboard – seemingly without fear or favor. May I dub you “Charlotte”? Even as I might be considered a la Chaplin, “Charlot”.
Annika,
Agreed.
Regards,
Jim
Annika, I agree in entirety.
You’re not alone. Mark Steyn, who’s had some experience in fighting for free speech, has this to say.
http://www.steynonline.com/6740/the-fire-rages
Perhaps you should say that you weren’t Charlie. For as of the publication of this piece, you are.
The only distinction I would make, is that you speak of both Freedom of and Freedom from as if they both exist. In fact there is no freedom from offense. There is no “right to not be offended”. Being offended is part of the human experience, but it is a choice made by the offended party.
Thank you. I’ve been thinking the same.
Agreed, thank you Annika.
I have had a problem with (for lack of a better term) solidarity movements since the Columbine massacre. I attended a rival high school and was locked in my physics class while the authorities tried to figure out what was going on. A day or two later when “We are all Columbine” appeared on the scene, I remember clearly thinking, “no we’re not.” It was a rough day for me and my friends, but we were three suburbs away. It was nothing compared to the kids in the cafeteria and library who watched it happen and/or were gunned down.
Saying “we are all…” or “I am…” in most cases seems like little more than an egotistical (if well-intentioned) way to insert oneself into a situation.
In the case of Charlie at least, we have a choice to become the thing. I hope many will do exactly what Annika says and shoulder the responsibility and thereby – through real courage – “earn” that label.
“Charlie Hebdo makes fun of people and institutions with influence, the underdog speaking truth to power.”
No mam. Look, you’re not supposed to speak ill of the dead, but I’m going to, because I see a lot of this going around… how the Charlie Hebdo guys were these sainted bastions of journalism. They were nothing of the kind. I’d never head of Charlie Hebdo before this stuff happened, and had never seen their work. Now that I’ve had a couple of days to look it over, I can say that Voltaire these guys weren’t. Political satire? Social commentary? Sometimes they did that. More often than not, though, it seemed to be offense for the sake of offense, insult for the sake of insult alone. Putting it bluntly, this wasn’t satire at times as much as it was the equivalent of a nasty 12 year old telling d*** jokes, and saying that he shaved your mom’s back last night, and what are ya gonna do about it?
You can criticize religions without being a petulant child about it. We do it all the time here. Just because the animals that killed these guys were villains doesn’t necessarily make what they did for a living heroic. Drawing cartoons of someone’s prophet or god sodomizing someone else’s prophet or god isn’t satire. It has no high literary, social, or artistic purpose. It’s a snotty kid poking a bear with a stick. The Charlie Hebdo guys had the right to do what they did for a living in a free society. That doesn’t bestow respect for what they did for a living.
These guys were brutally murdered, and nothing they drew justifies that. They were victims killed in cold blood. Their murderers deserve the fires of hell for what they’ve done. But heroes? Satirists?
Nope. When it comes right down to it, these guys were just plain ***holes, nasty for the sake of being nasty. There’s no commentary or satire or purpose in any of those images other than sheer outrage. The Charlie Hebdo guys aren’t Mark Twain. They’re shock jocks. They’re Howard Stern. They’re Larry Flynt, and Charlie Hebdo is Hustler. There are free speech issues here, but these guys aren’t noble champions.
(*NOTE: Mods, these images are CoC violations, but I beg your indulgence on this. It’s a lot easier… essential, even… to make my argument if members can actually see the kind of stuff the Charlie Hebdo guys did).
Bottom line, while people should have the right to do crass, stupid, and insulting stuff, they shouldn’t be honored for doing crass, stupid, and insulting stuff. I’m tired of seeing Charlie Hebdo being elevated in the western press to the level of The Federalist Papers or something. If you want to be Charlie Hebdo, go ahead. I am not Charlie Hebdo. Because while he didn’t deserve what happened to him, and we should fight for his right to do what he does, that dude was an ass.
Well, if you want to be brave, let’s take it a step further.
I’m not Charlie, and I don’t want to be. But I don’t want to be a murder victim, either. These murderers killed people. Full stop. That’s the story.
I reject the idea that in order to oppose these murders, I’m supposed to encourage and celebrate and treasure what the cartoonists were doing. I’ll tell you the truth, I never heard of this magazine before this story. Now that I’ve heard of them, I don’t think much of what they were doing. Supporting the right to freedom of thought is not to agree with the thought.
The crime here is not that Muslims hated the staff of Charlie Hebdo. Charlie Hebdo is irrelevant. The crime is about Muslim murderers who claim the right to kill because others offend them or even disagree with them.
I don’t give a damn about what the staff of Charlie Hebdo was doing. I mourn their murders because they’re human beings, not because they were heroes of any kind. They were arrogant, adolescent jackasses … don’t ask me to glorify them for what they did … just allow me to acknowledge that it was wrong to murder them. Freedom of thought means that you can’t kill people because they disagree with you, not that you have to “cherish” what everyone’s thinking.
I am not Charlie.
(Note: I started writing my post before seeing Douglas’ in #7. I agree with his sentiment.)
Thank you Annika.
Uh folks, when people say “Je suis Charlie”, it doesn’t mean that given the opportunity, they would also publish the same cartoons. It means that they stand for the freedom of press that Charlie tested all the time. Don’t be so literal. You are losing the meaning.
It’s also a rallying cry to express solidarity and unity. After 9/11, people around the world said “we are all Americans”. That also did not mean that they agreed with everything that America did on the world stage.
KC Mulville
…arrogant, adolescent jackasses …
Hey! We vote too!
With respect, I disagree. Forgive me while I be a little provocative here.
For a couple years now, Iraqi Christians have been slaughtered wholesale. And while that story was reported, no one said “Je suis Iraqi.” The Christian press has been begging for some attention to the slaughter.
The crime, however, was exactly the same here. Muslim murderers killing people over beliefs … in Iraq, they weren’t even insulting Islam, they were killed because they weren’t Muslim. Others are still being killed for the crime of being Christian. Same in Nigeria. Same in a number of places. The attack on freedom of thought isn’t new. It has been happening for quite a while.
The difference in this story is that journalists are now yelling and screaming in horror about an attack on journalists – now they are the targets. And now we’ve suddenly “discovered” the horror of attacks on freedom of thought? Where the hell were these guys when non-journalists were being slaughtered? It’s a little bit self-serving for journalists to go to blanket coverage of the murder of journalists, when the murders have been going on for years.
The press is asking me to become outraged, now that members of the press have been the victims. I’m being prompted to support journalists, even if those journalists were adolescent jackasses who published naughty cartoons.
I’m being asked to be outraged. Sorry. I mourn the loss of life, but I kind of resent the idea that these lives mattered where others didn’t.
It is normal to have a stronger reaction if the house across the street catches fire vs. a house 100 miles away. The French are closer to home and ‘more like us’ (in a global context). Millions of Americans travel there etc etc.
I am not Charlie Hebdo. Je suis Sturm & Ruger!
I agree
I probably wouldnt publish these cartoons either, but would I buy the magazine? I watched South Park for many years and loved it. You see these kinds of magazines bobbing up in some European cities. As low brow as they are, I’m glad they are there. I did buy a couple (not Charlie) in the past when I was over there. They dont really seem available in the English-speaking world. But toilet humour is not new, it was around in Roman times.
People who are reposting the hashtags are saying they are freedom lovers, and they want free speech. I wrote a social media post a few years ago protesting a particular court ruling as an attack on free speech, I was burned and slandered for it by alot of friends and followers (alot of these same people regularly post various lefty outrages). So being specific about who your enemies are on social media is risky for your PR, especially for the right. I know someone who lost their job over their politically-themed posts. “je suis Charlie” is a pretty safe way for once for people to be able to express publicly where they stand on free speech. Im glad that championing free speech is popular for once among my generation. I hope this is not an abberation, I hope we are finally turning a corner.
You guys can disagree all you want, but I and only I get to speak for myself. And I agree with Marion Evans.
Je suis Charlie!
Thank you Annika. Thank you commenters.
Je suis.
Put simply, I dont live in France, I dont own a firearm, Im not police or military. I have a normal civil suburban life pinning me down. Much as im a fan of yours Annika, as well as Mark Steyn and others, There is very little I can do other than post on the internet or vote in elections.
I fully agree.
“Speaking truth to power”? Not really. More like making fun of anyone and everyone for the purposes of being annoying.
We can still defend them, fully, without having to turn them into “truthsayers”.
At the end of the day, I’d say “don’t be Charlie” because being a “jacka**” is just a way to avoid having the conversations. We don’t live in 18th century France where freedom of expression and through weren’t allowed. Now, anyone can say whatever they want. It’s not “brave”. It’s like saying John Stewart speaks “truth to power”. Probably the worst thing to have happened to public discourse in America.
Of course, saying all of that at this point, would distract from the bigger issue of Islamist terrorists killing people for expressing their opinions. So it doesn’t need to be said now.
PS: Of course, the other “outrage” is that this “I am Charlie” stuff is coming out of Europe, where in many places you can end up in jail for doing precisely what the Charlie staff was doing. Hypocrites.
Thank you Douglas. I wondered as I read this piece of Annika’s vigorous defense of free speech would remain as intense were we to criticize Charlie.
What is meaningful to me is the statement by Stephane Charbonnier, knowing that he had been targeted for death, that “I’d rather die standing than live upon my knees”.
All other pontifications fade into irrelevance. As a free human being, I have to honor his declaration or cringe in cowardice.
Disagreements about his approach, his choice of target(s), etc. fade for me before his position of integrity. he was a model for living a brave, thoughtful life.
I am not him, and I celebrate him as an example.
You are somewhat more Charlie than most of us, as your defiled luggage and Torah bespeak.
It just hit me; I just connected the dots as to why the Tanya Cohens of the world want to outlaw offensive speech. (Notwithstanding jihadists, with whom they are unintentionally complicit.)
It’s all about immanentizing the eschaton. These folks work every day, with every fiber in their body, toward creating the perfect, peaceful, humanist utopia. A brave, new world where there is no war, no unwanted babies, no discrimination. A wonderfully diverse world, where everyone has free healthcare, and can marry whomever they want.
And, a world where never is heard an offensive word . . . even if it means ostracizing, and even imprisoning, those who would violate the code.
We are all human, we all have thoughts, ideas and opinions; we most likely will come in contact with those whom we vehemently disagree.
The content of Charlie’s speech is rather irrelevant, but the right to say it without being murdered is part of civilization–at least for many, many people.
Most people in the world are able to follow that train of thought, and live within those boundaries.
It is murderous tyrants who spoil civilization for us all.
‘Je suis Charlie’ applies to all of us on this earth, in that we should have the right to speak, to think, to disagree.
If ‘Je suis Charlie’ is true, we should unite around reinforcing our right to think, speak and disagree, without bloodshed.
The question is what actions are needed for us to reinforce this right to the murderers and their cohorts?
Annika +1
Je suis Charlie Martel.
Last Week’s Butcher’s Bill — Partial
It’s not about cartoons.
It’s not about whether or not Charlie Hebdo was tasteless.
It’s about the fact that a large faction of Islamist terrorists are at war with Western Civilization.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11329976/Paris-Charlie-Hebdo-attack-live.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/boko-haram-kills-2-000-people-attack-report-article-1.2071454
http://news.sky.com/story/1405106/hostages-killed-in-paris-supermarket-siege
HT to Mark Steyn for leading from the front on this.
Hi everyone. Since I’ve been offline due to Shabbat there is A LOT to reply to. Will do my best:
YeS, the drawings are vulgar but the drawings are not the reason why I consider CH heroic. It’s because they were threatened with violent death over the course of many years for what they did (making fun of Jews, Muslims, Christians, politicians, etc) and yet they did not back down. They chose to continue even though they knew others had paid for that with their life. I admire that, because they walked the walk.
I believe in free speech, even when that speech is ugly, vulgar and stupid. People offend my faith all the time, but it does not threaten me. Taking away my rights threatens me. Muslims draw caricatures of me and mine all the time. It’s iffensive, but it isn’t a cause for me to outlaw them. I know all too well that when we start stripping rights its a slippery slope, and I would hate to live in a world where the main goal is for no one to be hurt or offended. As a Jew I say this with some certainty, because we offend an awful lot of people and the stripping of rights usually starts with us.
So in short: the cartoons are not the point, and the taste level of the cartoons certainly isn’t. What I am defending is the right to offend, what I am celebrating is dying on your feet instead of living on your knees and what I want to achieve for myself is the fortitude to not bow or cower under threats or the oppression of the consensus.
So happy that you’ve emerged! Where are your comrades?