The recent murders at the Charlie Hebdo magazine have been the subject of an intense debate over free speech in the liberal West. The magazine has been under fire (quite literally in 2011) in the past for their racist cartoons. I'm not going to publish them on my blog, but if you must see some examples of what I'm talking about you can go here. This is one of those situations where there is no clear choice as to which side is right or wrong. At this point a dialectical materialist analysis calls for a denunciation of both sides.
First, this situation must be seen in historical context. The occupation of Algeria by the French left scars on both sides so there is this very tense, but also very close relationship between the Algerians and the French. At the time of the Algerian revolution there were 900,000 European-Algerians who fled back to France. Algeria had been annexed prior, so Muslim Algerians and Europeans who settled in Algeria were considered French citizens, but the Muslim Algerians were second-class citizens in their own country. In 1965 Malcolm X's plane was not allowed to land in France. In 2011 the niqab was outlawed in France.
Liberal Islamophobia is a much more intense and real thing in France than anything Bill Maher might say. Secondly, I do oppose free speech when it agitates for oppression and I think this is a thing we as a society need to think about. Liberals will see old Bugs Bunny cartoons with Black Sambos or Bucktoothed Japanese and say, "Thank goodness entertainment isn't like that today," but it still is!!! Watch South Park, Mad TV, SNL, Family Guy or the film recently declared by many to be a "freedom fighter" of freeze peach, the Interview, and it's no different! Now, Charlie Hedbo just happened to be one of these offensive comedy outlets (why does everyone call them journalists, btw? from my understanding it was a comedy mag!) and they used the leftist flag as a cover for their offensive jokes, but caricatures of stereotypes are what they are whether it be a black Sambo, a bucktoothed Japanese or googly eyed "towel head."
Third, I am no apologist for Islam. As a matter of fact, this quote from Zizek, from a 2006 op-ed piece he wrote for the New York Times, sums up my feelings on the subject better than I can:
While a true atheist has no need to bolster his own stance by provoking believers with blasphemy, he also refuses to reduce the problem of the Muhammad caricatures to one of respect for other's beliefs. Respect for other's beliefs as the highest value can mean only one of two things: Either we treat the other in a patronizing way and avoid hurting him in order not to ruin his illusions, or we adopt the relativist stance of multiple "regimes of truth," disqualifying as violent imposition any clear insistence on truth.
What about submitting Islam - together with all other religions - to a respectful, but for that reason no less ruthless, critical analysis? This, and only this, is the way to show a true respect for Muslims: to treat them as adults responsible for their beliefs.
On the other hand, after Charlie Hebdo offices were fire bombed in 2011, Bruce Crumley wrote this for Time Magazine:
Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.
Needless to say, I'm very ambivalent about this incident. On one hand, I don't think the killing of these comedians was warranted what so ever. It doesn't fall into the realm of self-defense (and I have a more flexible definition of self-defense than many). Those who would coddle French Muslims and Islam in general as "untouchable" by criticism are unreasonable.
On the other hand, I am not an advocate of irresponsible speech under the liberal free speech banner. Jokes are not critiques, they are malicious bullying. Rape jokes aren't funny. Racist jokes aren't funny. If you say them I won't feel bad if you get punched in the mouth (I wouldn't be the one doing the punching, probably though - I'd just tell you to shut up). Some things should just be off limits to make jokes about and I think Western society needs to have a conversation about this. 1970s entertainment was more progressive than the entertainment today. That's called cultural regression.
However, ideas must be critiqued and religions are ideas. Just because ideas are deeply held doesn't not mean they're off limits for critique. Caricatures and stereotypes are not critiques, though. They are just offensive and Charlie Hebdo knew that if they continued doing what they were doing there would be more trouble. How many warnings did they need?!?!
First, this situation must be seen in historical context. The occupation of Algeria by the French left scars on both sides so there is this very tense, but also very close relationship between the Algerians and the French. At the time of the Algerian revolution there were 900,000 European-Algerians who fled back to France. Algeria had been annexed prior, so Muslim Algerians and Europeans who settled in Algeria were considered French citizens, but the Muslim Algerians were second-class citizens in their own country. In 1965 Malcolm X's plane was not allowed to land in France. In 2011 the niqab was outlawed in France.
Liberal Islamophobia is a much more intense and real thing in France than anything Bill Maher might say. Secondly, I do oppose free speech when it agitates for oppression and I think this is a thing we as a society need to think about. Liberals will see old Bugs Bunny cartoons with Black Sambos or Bucktoothed Japanese and say, "Thank goodness entertainment isn't like that today," but it still is!!! Watch South Park, Mad TV, SNL, Family Guy or the film recently declared by many to be a "freedom fighter" of freeze peach, the Interview, and it's no different! Now, Charlie Hedbo just happened to be one of these offensive comedy outlets (why does everyone call them journalists, btw? from my understanding it was a comedy mag!) and they used the leftist flag as a cover for their offensive jokes, but caricatures of stereotypes are what they are whether it be a black Sambo, a bucktoothed Japanese or googly eyed "towel head."
Third, I am no apologist for Islam. As a matter of fact, this quote from Zizek, from a 2006 op-ed piece he wrote for the New York Times, sums up my feelings on the subject better than I can:
While a true atheist has no need to bolster his own stance by provoking believers with blasphemy, he also refuses to reduce the problem of the Muhammad caricatures to one of respect for other's beliefs. Respect for other's beliefs as the highest value can mean only one of two things: Either we treat the other in a patronizing way and avoid hurting him in order not to ruin his illusions, or we adopt the relativist stance of multiple "regimes of truth," disqualifying as violent imposition any clear insistence on truth.
What about submitting Islam - together with all other religions - to a respectful, but for that reason no less ruthless, critical analysis? This, and only this, is the way to show a true respect for Muslims: to treat them as adults responsible for their beliefs.
On the other hand, after Charlie Hebdo offices were fire bombed in 2011, Bruce Crumley wrote this for Time Magazine:
Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.
Needless to say, I'm very ambivalent about this incident. On one hand, I don't think the killing of these comedians was warranted what so ever. It doesn't fall into the realm of self-defense (and I have a more flexible definition of self-defense than many). Those who would coddle French Muslims and Islam in general as "untouchable" by criticism are unreasonable.
On the other hand, I am not an advocate of irresponsible speech under the liberal free speech banner. Jokes are not critiques, they are malicious bullying. Rape jokes aren't funny. Racist jokes aren't funny. If you say them I won't feel bad if you get punched in the mouth (I wouldn't be the one doing the punching, probably though - I'd just tell you to shut up). Some things should just be off limits to make jokes about and I think Western society needs to have a conversation about this. 1970s entertainment was more progressive than the entertainment today. That's called cultural regression.
However, ideas must be critiqued and religions are ideas. Just because ideas are deeply held doesn't not mean they're off limits for critique. Caricatures and stereotypes are not critiques, though. They are just offensive and Charlie Hebdo knew that if they continued doing what they were doing there would be more trouble. How many warnings did they need?!?!