In Paris, France on January 7, 2015, the office of the satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo was attacked by two Islamic extremists, who shot 12 people to death and injured many more. A leading daily newspaper in France “Le Monde” called it the “September 11th of France” and indeed the incident was a great shock to people both within and outside the country.
On January 11, four days after the incident, demonstrations were held across France to mourn for the victims, in which a total of 3.7 million citizens participated. In Paris, it is said that 1.6 million people crowded the main streets, holding placards on which was written, “Je suis Charlie (I am Charlie)” in their hands, in order to show their sympathy to Charlie Hebdo for its painful experience and also to show their strong commitment to protecting the freedom of expression.
Charlie Hebdo became a globally famous newspaper because of the incident, before which it was not a major newspaper. It was a satirical newspaper in which caricatures, jokes and parodies about political and religious authorities were published. The circulation was about 30,000 copies per week and the caricatures were far from being graceful. Charlie Hebdo often published caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, which caused the terrorist attack by the Islamic extremists.
In Japan, not a few people criticized Charlie Hebdo’s editorial stance saying, “How could the freedom of expression mean that you can say anything?” after making a perfunctory comment, “Terrorism should never be accepted.” However, in post-incident France, there were almost no discussions on the “limit” to be imposed on the freedom of expression. For most French people, setting a limit on the freedom might mean to make it not freedom and be totally unacceptable.
Why is the freedom of expression absolutely valued in France? We can find the answer to this question in its history. In France, the royal and religious authorities had long deprived general people of their wealth and freedom by sometimes cooperating with and sometimes confronting with each other. But finally, at the end of the 18th century, the king was guillotined in the French Revolution, which was followed by dramatic movements toward dechristianization. However, we must not forget that people’s resistance against the authorities began far earlier than the outbreak of the revolution.
For example, Francois Rabelais, a writer representing the French Renaissance in the 16th century, satirized the theological college of the University of Paris in his funny books, Pantagruel and Gargantua. Moliere, a comedy writer in the 17th century, made fun of religious hypocrisy in his drama Tartuffe. Voltaire is also widely known as a writer and thinker who fought against oppressive and tyrannical Catholics. In the 18th century when Voltaire was resisting the strong suppression of speech, the public began to have critical opinions about the royal and religious authorities, which led to the French Revolution at the end of the century.
French people therefore have pride and belief in their critical spirit, which was passed down to them (sometimes at the cost of people’s lives) and brought about the freedom of expression. In France, republicanism was established by the founding of the Third Republic in 1870. In the country in the 19th century journalism prospered due to the innovation of industrial technologies and increased literacy among people. A newspaper in which caricatures making fun of the July Monarchy and Catholic churches was also published and enjoyed popularity in the century. French people believe that continuing to criticize the rulers without giving in to their authoritative power gives them a source of freedom. This strong belief has been established over the long history of fights for the freedom. Against this backdrop, people in France held demonstrations on the streets across the country on January 11, 2015, criticizing the terrorist attacks and the attempts to threaten the freedom of expression.
In France, however, the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression are not guaranteed in an absolute manner. It might sound inconsistent with what was mentioned above, but in France a clear limit is set on the freedom of expression by law. The law on the freedom of the press enacted in 1881 was the first law to limit the freedom of speech and expression in France to the extent that it “would not harm others.” Then in 1972 the law against racism was enacted in the country and in 1990 the so-called Gayssot Law was enacted to strictly prohibit discriminative expressions about race, in particular anti-Semitic expressions and Holocaust denial. The limits set on the freedom of expression regarding Jewish people are not unreasonable in consideration of the painful history of the Jews and the fact that there are still some people who strongly supporting anti-Semitic ideology. However, if you were allowed to say to Muslims, who are also a minority in France, anything that would constitute a legal offense if you said it to Jewish people, it would make the situation in the country very confusing.
One week after the terrorist attack was made on Charlie Hebdo, a media manager is said to have said the following in a radio program broadcast nationwide: “Let us face the reality. In present France, Muslims are causing problems. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” As a French political scientist said in an interview (which you can read at: http://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/58902), people would severely criticize the person’s abusive words, if they had been uttered against Jewish people. However, the person was not punished because the comments had targeted Muslims.
It is unclear how many of people participating in the demonstrations to mourn for the victims and show sympathy for Charlie Hebdo were recognizing that they had the double standards. However, regardless of whether they were recognizing it or not, they must have been shocked by the incident caused by the comedian named Dieudonne. After participating in one of the demonstrations held on the 11th, the comedian wrote in his Facebook page, “I feel like Charlie Coulibaly.” Coulibaly is the family name of the man who acted in collaboration with the attackers on Charlie Hebdo. This man shot a policewoman to death near a Jewish school in the suburbs of Paris and killed four people at a Jewish grocery store. Dieudonne evocatively made fun of the solidarity (and excessive expression?) of people who had gathered under the slogan, “Je suis Charlie” by associating the name of the man with Charlie. As a result, the comedian was taken away by the police and detained. (The aforementioned interview refers to this incident as well.)
The authorities reacted to his posting too sensitively largely because France was in a tense situation immediately after the series of terrorist attacks as well as because Dieudonne had been repeatedly doing and saying things to mock Jewish people for a certain period and had been monitored by the authorities. At any rate, the arrest of the comedian has made it clear that there is a certain limit on the freedom of expression in France and that minorities in the country are divided into the following two: those who are protected enough by the limits and those who are unprotected and exposed to mocking and slandering despite the limits. After all, what did participants in the demonstrations want to protect by calling for the freedom of expression under the catch phrase, “Je suis Charlie”? If what they wanted to protect is the freedom to (unintentionally but actually) make fun of Islam in an unlimited manner, it is not funny at all.
The special issue of the monthly magazine France, which was published in March to consider the Charlie Hebdo incident from a range of angles, includes an article on the statement made by Charlie Hebdo nine years before the occurrence of the terrorist attack (article written by Junko Nimura about Charlie, which questioned whether Charlie was an anti-racist or ultra-racist). In the statement, the newspaper referred to Islamism as a new threat of totalitarianism faced by the world and rejected to give up their critical spirit against Islamism for the reason that it would help foster hate against Islam. Then they said that they would take a firm stand for the universalization of the freedom of expression, so that any kinds of bad customs and doctrines would be criticized across all continents.
As the author of the article published in the special issue of the magazine France points out, the statement reminds me of the ideology for colonialism. Just as the (forcible) suppression of “inferior ethnic groups” had been justified under the slogan of “civilization” and the “mission for civilization,” Islam bashing is justified in the statement by the excuse of critical spirit and universalization of the freedom of expression. Even in the post-colonialism age of today, some people seem to think of themselves as a “superior racial group.”
As it was so in the France before the French Revolution, the freedom of expression (and satire as a tool to execute the right to the freedom) should be ensured for the weak to resist against unfair authorities. The weak should not be forced to refrain from saying what they want to and need to say, which could mean “self-destruction” to the weak. This should never happen, and the weak should resist against any pressures that could force them to refrain from executing the right.
Based on this recognition, it is quite doubtful that the right to the freedom of expression was executed as the “arms” of the weak in the case of Charlie Hebdo, which had made the statement as introduced above and satirized Islam. Charlie Hebdo seemed to use the freedom of expression as an excuse to insult Muslims, who had been much suffering from discrimination and prejudice, such as “Muslims are causing problems to present France,” and not as a tool to make fun of the authorities by caricatures. Satirizing the weak is nothing but bullying. Although Charlie Hebdo was supported by people in the large demonstrations held after the incident, the newspaper will naturally lose their support if it continues such bullying without knowing that what it is doing is bullying.
The large demonstrations held on January 11 inspired not only participants but also people across the world who saw them on TV and via the Internet. However, it is necessary to pay attention to the unfairness and contradictions hidden behind these “inspiring” demonstrations.
(This column is as of 2015.)
