Lessons from Charlie Hebdo: Cutting through the crap

We should take this chance to look back at the Charlie Hebdo murders with sobriety and reflect on its lessons. Up until this point, a rational analysis of what got us here has been hard to come by and drowned out by louder, populist voices. Marches by anti-immigrant parties, violent demonstrations in the Muslim world to the follow-up cover featuring Muhammad and liberal attacks on the “limits” of free speech simply do not contribute to such reflection, they only shove a narrow interpretation where it cannot possibly fit.

(1) Understanding Hebdo’s style

It became obvious early on that Charlie Hebdo is poorly understood. Shocking images like that below, at first appearance, are grotesquely prejudiced. Only upon closer inspection does their satire comply with quintessential French values: cultural critique, ridicule of unwarranted belief and absolute freedom of speech. For instance, many pointed to the portrayal of French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira as a monkey as being “racist.” The intent, ironically, by cartoonist Charb was to depict how the far-right National Front uses race as a unifying force.

Charlie Hebdo does not claim to be a popular magazine, meant for mass consumption, rather it foregoes – refreshingly – political correctness entirely. Those prudish, superficial critics who cannot get over the – quite intentional – reflex of disgust brought on by looking at offensive images may choose not to purchase the magazine.

Charlie Hebdo has proved it has a place in the media not only as a provocateur, much like raunchy comedians who mock prejudice (think South Park, think Dave Chappelle), but also as one of the only publications to reprint the “offensive” Danish cartoons which led to economic boycotts, mass protests and at least 200 deaths throughout the world. It’s important to ask oneself: did one Muslim die in the aftermath of Hebdo murders?

(2) Hebdo knew the dangers of insulting Muslims

Many found sympathy for the view that Charlie Hebdo had brought this upon themselves for direct attacks against Muslims. “If Charlie Hebdo had just avoided insulting Islam they would be fine.” This is an amazing surrender if you think about it. So, if I only stop writing and drawing inflammatory things nobody will have CAUSE to KILL me. The best analogy for this head-in-the-sand approach is Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler’s troops marching into the demilitarized Rhineland, effectively surrendering at the first sight of aggression. Proponents of this tactic must answer the question: if we are not allowed to criticize Islam then why defend our right to lambast politicians, other religions or anything else we find distasteful or far-fetched? If the only difference is the threat of violence then, rather than being defenders of Islam as they claim, these appeasers are unconsciously admitting Islam is dangerous.

(3) France failed to integrate Muslims

Reza Aslan, an ostensibly liberal Muslim religious scholar, gained traction through news media for his eloquent interviews and seemingly incisive insights. I have no doubt he convinced many with his argument that Charlie Hebdo was attacked due to the inability of Europe to integrate Muslims and that attacks by right wing Europeans on Muslims also occur. On its face, there is logic and causality in his words but when you consider the large number of immigrants in Europe and disproportionately Islamist profile of terrorist attacks, it falls flat. For example, Indians make up sizable immigrant populations in Europe, America and Africa. Most Indians are Hindu, a religion that worships cows as a sacred animal. However, in the countries they emigrate to, Indians are most likely to find beef being eaten and cows being mistreated. Have you ever heard of Indians rallying violently, burning effigies of cow farmers and bombing food processing plants? No, of course not. The point is that you emigrate for the benefits your new country offers or to escape the evils of your old one, NOT to impose the intolerance of the old on the new.

Quite to the contrary of what Aslan says, Muslims in Europe are afforded the freedom to practice their religion in peace. It is bizarre just how much freedom is given. For instance, in the UK, hardline Muslim groups arrange “Shar’iah patrols”. The patrols are informal police who chastise British women for wearing mini-skirts and try to uphold other Islamic dictates in BRITISH neighborhoods. But don’t take my word for it, watch this.

(4) The attack on Hebdo had nothing to do with religion

 This is the most ridiculous claim out there and deserves even less of a response than I will give it. The attackers screamed “We have avenged the Prophet” and “Allahu Akbar.” The grocery store attacker IN A VIDEO claims allegiance with ISIS and Islamic caliphate. It’s not too bold a claim to say this would never have occurred were it not for religion.

Conclusion

It should now be obvious to all that this will not be the last attack. With thousands of European-born Muslims fighting in Iraq and Syria for the Islamic State, it is virtually assured that some will return and manage to stay off the radar. Rather than blaming the victim it is incumbent upon us to question the attackers’ beliefs and that means scrutiny of their faith. There is nothing racist or Islamophobic about that, ignoring this overt dimension of the tragedy would be akin to a detective ignoring the open prescription bottle in an overdose case.