Columns that reveal the world
- Getting up close and personal with the researchers -

On January 7th of last year (2015), the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a weekly newspaper that sells cartoons, were attacked in Paris, France, by two Islamic extremists, leaving 12 people dead and many others injured. This incident sent shock waves both in France and abroad, with the leading daily newspaper Le Monde describing it as "France's 9/11."

On the 11th, four days after the incident, a demonstration to commemorate the victims of the incident was held across France, with 3.7 million citizens participating. In Paris, 1.6 million citizens filled the main streets with placards reading "I am Charlie." The phrase "I am Charlie" not only conveys the desire to embrace the pain of "Charlie Hebdo" as one's own, but also a strong will to defend freedom of expression.

Although Charlie Hebdo became known around the world as a result of this incident, it was never originally a major newspaper. It was a satirical newspaper that published provocative cartoons, jokes, and parodies against political and religious authorities, but it only had a circulation of about 30,000 per week. Even if we look at the cartoons themselves, it was a medium that could not be described as tasteful, even to the slightest extent. Charlie Hebdo often published cartoons that made fun of the Prophet Muhammad, and this incident was caused by some Islamic extremists who were opposed to these.

In Japan, following the incident, many commentators were seen voicing critical views of Charlie Hebdo's editorial stance, saying, "Terrorism is never acceptable," and asking, "Can they say anything they want under the guise of freedom of expression?" However, in France immediately after the incident, it seems that there was almost no discussion about the "limits" of freedom of expression. It may be that placing restrictions on freedom, in other words, taking away freedom, is an unacceptable request for the majority of French people.

So why is freedom of expression so absolute in France? The reason can be found in France's history. Roughly speaking, for a long time in France, the monarchy and the clergy sometimes joined hands and sometimes were in violent conflict, but they reigned as the powers that exploited the wealth and freedom of the people. This is why the great revolution at the end of the 18th century (the French Revolution) was accompanied not only by the beheading of the king but also by the outbreak of the de-Christianization movement, but we must not forget that rebellion against authority had begun long before the outbreak of the great revolution.

For example, the 16th century writer Rabelais, a representative French Renaissance writer, satirized the Faculty of Theology at the University of Paris, a stronghold of medieval theology, in his hilarious books "Pantagruel" and "Gargantua," while the 17th century comedian Molière harshly mocked religious hypocrisy in his play "Tartuffe." Voltaire is also famous as a writer and thinker who fought against Catholic oppression and tyranny. In the 18th century, when he was active, suppression of free speech was still strong, but he managed to get through it and form a public opinion critical of the monarchy and clergy, which became the driving force behind the great revolutions at the end of the century.

The French have a sense of pride and conviction that they were able to win freedom because they continued to express their critical spirit (sometimes at the risk of their lives). Republicanism took hold in France only after the Third Republic began in 1870, but in the 19th century, journalism flourished due to innovations in industrial technology and an increase in literacy, and newspapers appeared that gained popularity by publishing cartoons that harshly mocked the July Monarchy and the Catholic Church. The belief that the source of the freedom they won was the continued expression of critical views of the ruling class without bowing to power is a very strong one that has been cultivated through a long history of struggle. It was against this historical background that the people rebelled against the threat of freedom of expression by the violence of terrorism, and so many people took to the streets on January 11th, and demonstrations were held across France.

However, freedom of speech and expression in France is not absolute. Although it may seem to contradict what I have said above, there are clear legal limitations on freedom of expression in France. The Law on Freedom of the Press enacted in 1881 limited the exercise of this freedom to the extent that it "does not harm others." The Law on the Elimination of Racism in 1972 and the so-called Gesso Law in 1990 strictly prohibit racist expressions, especially anti-Semitic expressions and negativist speech (speech denying the Holocaust by Nazi Germany). If we take seriously the history of suffering that the Jewish people have had to live through, and if we consider that anti-Semitic ideology is still deeply supported by some people, it is not at all unreasonable to ask for a certain degree of moderation in speech targeting Jews. However, if it is acceptable to hurl at Muslims (who are also a minority and in a weak position in France) what would be legally punishable if said against Jews, then the situation becomes quite complicated.

A week after the Charlie Hebdo incident, a media executive apparently said the following on a nationally broadcast radio program: "Let's face it. In France today, the problem is Muslims." "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." As a French political scientist said in an interview (you can read the interview at http://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/58902), if the same person had said, "The problem is Jews," it would have caused a huge controversy. However, the current situation is that such outrageous remarks about Muslims can be made without any punishment.

It is unclear how many of the people who took part in the memorial demonstrations saying "I am Charlie" were aware of this double standard. However, whether they were aware or not, the commotion caused by a comedian named Dieudonné immediately after the memorial demonstration must have been a cold shower. After participating in the large-scale demonstration on the 11th, Dieudonné posted on his Facebook page, "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly." Coulibaly is the last name of the man who acted in cooperation with the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo attack, shooting and killing a female police officer near a Jewish school on the outskirts of Paris, and then murdering four people in a Jewish grocery store while holed up there. By linking this last name with Charlie, Dieudonné provocatively mocked the solidarity (and its excessive performance?) of the people who had gathered under the slogan "I am Charlie," but he was taken into custody by the police for this (this commotion is also mentioned in the interview mentioned above).

The authorities' sensitive reaction was likely due in large part to the tense situation immediately after the series of terrorist attacks, and the fact that Dieudonné had been under the watchful eye of the authorities for repeatedly making ridiculous remarks about Jews for a certain period of time must have also had a psychological effect. Whatever the circumstances, the news of Dieudonné's arrest made us clearly aware that there are clear limits to freedom of expression in France, and that this has resulted in a dichotomy between minorities who are well protected and those who are vulnerable to ridicule and slander. After all, what was it that was being defended by those who sang "I am Charlie" and loudly advocated freedom of expression? If it was the freedom to unscrupulously spew out Islamic satire (regardless of what the pretense may be, in reality), it would not be much to laugh about.

The monthly magazine France published a special issue in March that looked at the Charlie Hebdo incident from various angles, and one of the articles mentioned a statement published in the magazine nine years before the incident (Nimura Junko, "Who is Charlie? Anti-racist? Ultra-racist?"). This statement, which names Islamism as the new totalitarian threat facing the world, goes on to say, "We refuse to lose our critical spirit for the sake of fear that it may encourage Islamophobia," and goes on to say, "We argue for the universalization of freedom of expression, so that this critical spirit may be exercised on all continents against all vices and doctrines."

As the author of the article points out, this statement is reminiscent of the ideology of colonialism in the past. Just as the subjugation of "inferior races" (often by force) was justified in the name of "civilization" or the "civilizing mission," the bashing of Islam is justified under the pretext of universalizing the critical spirit and freedom of expression. Even in the present day, which is said to be the age of postcolonialism, the mindset of not hesitating to position oneself as a "superior race" remains deeply rooted in some circles.

As we have seen going back to pre-Revolutionary France, freedom of expression (and satire as a form of its exercise) should essentially be a means of resistance for the weak when faced with the injustice of those in power. To that extent, an attitude of "self-restraint" in what one wants to say or what one should say is a choice that should never be made, as it risks leading the weak to "self-destruction." Any pressure to enforce such self-restraint must be constantly resisted.

With that in mind, when it comes to the Islamic satire of Charlie Hebdo, which published the above statement, one has to say that it is highly doubtful whether it really functions as a weapon of the weak against the strong. For Charlie Hebdo, freedom of expression has not been a way to caricature and laugh at those in power, but rather an excuse to hurt and denigrate Muslims, who have suffered considerable discrimination and prejudice up until now ("In today's France, the problem is Muslims," etc.). Satire that corners the weak is not satire, but merely a means of insidious bullying. Charlie Hebdo's citizenship was reaffirmed by the large-scale demonstrations that followed the incident, but if it continues to indulge in bullying without realizing it, its value as an existence will naturally be diminished.

The large-scale demonstration on January 11th was a moving scene that will remain in the hearts of not only the many people who took part in the demonstration, but also those around the world who followed it on television and the Internet. However, even if we were captivated by the scene, we must continue to be vigilant about the injustices and contradictions that are concealed by "moving" appeals to defend freedom of expression.

(Published in 2015)