Charlie Hebdo: Freedom of Speech in a Culture of Fear

“They must have seen this coming.” Hearing this statement from a friend of mine in response to the fatal attack on the editorial staff of the satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, I was eager to hear the logic behind it. “They’ve had death threats continuously sent to their door, along with a firebomb attack in 2011. They were aware of the danger they were in, yet they continued to persevere with their offensive publications to prove a point. Was it really worth it?” While easy to explain that no form of journalism should ever have to fear a murderous attack, I have to admit, it was difficult to offer a coherent argument about the reasoning behind it all in response to my friend’s curious assertions.

The tragic loss of life that occurred in Paris on 7/1/15 has raised a number of questions. Many are having trouble understanding the motives of the cartoonists behind Charlie Hebdo, and their reasons for persisting to shock the world with their offensive portrayals of the prophet Muhammad and the Islamic State in the face of clear and persistent danger. Moments before the fatal attack, the fearless magazine editor, Stephane Charbonnier, posted his final cartoon, ironically predicting his own demise. The image shows an Islamic terrorist equipped with a rifle posing the question: “Still no attacks in France? Wait – we’ve still got until the end of January to present our best wishes.”

The efforts by Charlie Hebdo to reject censorship, to challenge taboos, and to defy religious doctrine were relentless. Even as French state officials attempted to silence the outspoken magazine, with the foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, pleading: “Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour fuel on the fire?”, the journalists retaliated with further satire and more offensive material. Gérard Biard, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, rejected the criticism of Fabius, stating “We’re a newspaper that respects French law. Now, if there’s a law that is different in Kabul or Riyadh, we’re not going to bother ourselves with respecting it.”

In a bid to reinforce the refusal of the people to bow down to violent oppressors, mourners around the world have taken to social media in a silent protest and a show of solidarity depicting the words: “Je Suis Charlie”. The website of Charlie Hebdo is black, denoting the three powerful words in white in a defiant challenge, and as a mark of respect. A simple, colourless PDF attached translating the words into seven world languages.

Since the fatal shootings on January 7th, the cartoonists have been branded martyrs for liberty, and freedom of speech. The attack has brought to light an intriguing difference of opinion on what constitutes freedom of speech, and when it goes a step too far. Questions like: Who gets to indulge in free speech and who doesn’t? When does free speech cross the line into bullying, defamation, harassment? How do we protect ourselves against extremists in an age where free speech knows no bounds? Can we really claim freedom of speech in a society that is steeped in fear?

As I look forward to finding the answers to these questions, the nostalgic, yet bold message of Charlie Hebdo rings in my ears: “Never give in to intimidation.” While many would call it stupidity to answer intimidation with controversy, the alternative often means bowing down to your oppressors, cowering in the face of fear, and questioning your integrity. Whether or not there is a happy medium remains to be seen. One thing that most will agree on? The editorial staff of Charlie Hebdo displayed bravery in its rarest form.

Je suis Charlie.

The Pope’s Interview: Hope or Hoax?

Describing the Catholic church as “a field hospital after battle”, Pope Francis, in his 12,000 word interview has called for the reform of attitudes, and the healing of wounds as he insists “It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars. You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else.” The Pope’s words have led to an air of excitement among the public as the media zones in on terms such as “reform” and “change” in an effort to portray a shift in Catholic thinking. Yet, the translated article may need further deconstructing before we start branding contraception with the church’s logo or hosting gay pride parades in the name of Pope Francis.

The obvious topics of homosexuality, abortion and contraception were given some importance as the Pope tried to place an emphasis on the individual. Forming a link between him and the people by describing himself as a sinner, he goes on to say “A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person”…. “In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.”
Many have looked upon these passages as a declaration of the Pope’s (and hence the Church’s) new stance on homosexuality as he preaches a more open and accepting attitude towards the subject. However, we need to be weary of counting our chickens so to speak. Although the Pope here does shed a new light on the topic of homosexuality by ‘condemning the condemning’ and by accepting the reality of the ‘scoial wounds’ inflicted by the church, he is still careful to maintain the church’s stance as he does not offer anything that veers away from the traditional option of ‘turning towards the light’, to receive redemption through confession of such sins, as we will see later in the interview.

The Pope talks about the role of women in the church and even touches on the topic of abortion as he claims “I also consider the situation of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do?”. Again it would appear that the Pope is giving divorce and abortion a new-found acceptance, yet the idea is still enforced that the abortion in this scenario should “weigh heavily on her conscience” and she should “sincerely regret it”, confessing to these “sins” if she should want to live a Christian life. In this case, the Pope is not offering much hope in way of a reform.

He finally declares that we need to put an end to this “obsession” with matters such as contraception and gay marriage, as he reaffirms the stance of the Catholic church on such matters, firmly putting a halt to any hope for change that we may have been indulging in during the course of the interview. “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

But lets not dwell only on the negative aspects of the Pope’s interview as in some ways, and for some, it has instilled a new sense of hope. Simply hearing the Pope mention change, reform and discuss new attitudes towards issues that have played such a pivotal role in the church’s demise is surely something to celebrate. It is necessary to note that the church has not changed its perception of sin which is further portrayed in Pope Francis’s declaration “The ones who quit sometimes do it for reasons that, if properly understood and assessed, can lead to a return”. Nonetheless, I leave you with the most positive aspect of the Pope’s interview, the prospect of possibility.
“We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards”.

Full English translation of Pope’s interview available here: http://americamagazine.org/pope-interview