Visit ArabTopics.com

Terror in Paris – An Analysis  by Lawrence Davidson

Image: French Muslims have been complaining of restrictions on performing their religious practices and discrimination.

The editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo, Stephane Charbonnier, known as Charb  knew that the Charlie Weekly approach would work only as long as its ridicule was seen as politically acceptable by both most French people and their government. Defaming national heroes or Jews was out of bounds, but ridiculing Muslims was and is acceptable, and maybe that is why they became Charlie Weekly’s preferred target. That, in turn, made the magazine’s staff targets of Muslim extremists. 

 

by Dr. Lawrence Davidson

 Part I – The Attack and Its Immediate Context

 On Wednesday 7 January 2015 two heavily armed men walked into the Paris offices of a satirical magazine called Charlie Hebdo (Charlie Weekly) and methodically murdered twelve people, including the magazine’s editor Stephane Charbonnier (aka Charb), four cartoonists, a columnist, a proofreader, a maintenance worker, two policemen stationed inside the building, and one outside.The killers were Muslim extremists associated with al-Qaeda, but their actions were praised by the Islamic State (ISIS) as well. Almost everyone else, including most Muslim commentators, condemned the attack for the horrible crime it certainly was. 

 Why Charlie Weekly? The immediate reason for the attack seems to have been the repeated satirization of the Prophet Mohammed in cartoons that were, to put it mildly, of questionable taste. Of course the magazine had satirized others as well but gave disproportionate attention to Muslims and their Prophet. 

 All of this was done under the cover of freedom of speech. As Charb said in an 2012 interview, “Our job is not to defend freedom of speech but without it we’re dead. We can’t live in a country without freedom of speech. I prefer to die than to live like a rat.”

 Part II –  Charlie Hebdo and the Question of Freedom of Speech

 I think everyone with a progressive outlook can agree that freedom to criticize governments and other centers of power is an absolute necessity if we are to have a free society. But we must also recognize that the notion of unimpaired free speech is an ideal that is constantly approached and retreated from. In practice its limits tend to be culturally and politically determined. Further, when we move beyond the critique of power there are good arguments for the position that freedom of speech should be coupled with a promulgated definition of social responsibility.

 It seems to me that Charb and his magazine had little concern for these issues and, by concentrating their ridicule on Muslims with occasional jabs at the Catholic Church, had accommodated themselves to France’s selectively censored environment. Consider the following: 

  • Charlie Hebdo was founded in 1970 after its predecessor magazine, called the Hara-Kiri Hebdohad been shut down by the French government. Why? It had insulted the memory of the then recently deceased Charles de Gaulle.
  • If Charlie Hebdo had satirized the Jews in the same way it did the Muslims, its director and staff would have likely been hauled into court and charged with anti-Semitism, expressions of which are illegal in France. 
  • As the political Scientist Anne Norton points out, while “casting itself as the defender of free speech … . the Paris prosecutor’s office is investigating [and subsequently has taken into custody] comedian Dieudonne M’bala for ‘defending terrorism’ after his Facebook post, ‘I feel like Charlie Coulibaly.’” Coulibaly was terrorist involved in the recent Paris violence against Jews. 

 Charbonnier and his fellows at Charlie Weekly were aware of the first two facts. Thus, Charb was telling the truth when he said that the magazine was not defending free speech. He knew that the Charlie Weekly approach would work only as long as its ridicule was seen as politically acceptable by both most French people and their government. Defaming national heroes or Jews was out of bounds, but ridiculing Muslims was and is acceptable, and maybe that is why they became Charlie Weekly’s preferred target. That, in turn, made the magazine’s staff targets of Muslim extremists. 

 Part III – The Larger Context

Terror in Paris – An Analysis  by Lawrence Davidson

Editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo, Stephane Charbonnier

 

 Whatever Stephane Charbonnier’s actual motives and aims, he and his fellow workers at Charlie Weekly died in the course of promoting them. 

 At that point their motives were co-opted by the French government in what was soon declared as a war of values. On 10 January French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared war against “radical Islam” because its practitioners had attacked “our values, which are universal.” 

 That last claim is an example of French hubris getting in the way of reality. For better or worse, French values are definitely not universal. They are just another version of culturally determined practices which, in terms of speech, set the limits of what the powers that be find permissible. These limits may be broader than the ones promoted by Islamists but, as we have seen, they are not open-ended. 

 Nonetheless the illusion of universal values was used by Prime Minister Valls to rally his fellow citizens. On 11 January a reported 2 million French men and women, with some 40 world leaders (most notably half the Israeli cabinet) at their head, marched through Paris to protest the attack on Charlie Weekly. It was said to have been the largest public rally France has seen since the liberation of Paris at the end of World War II.  

 Most of those who attended this historic rally probably knew little or nothing of the context of the crime they protested. And, while the magazine’s demeaning cartoons might have been the immediate cause of the murders, it was certainly not the only cause. Prime Minister Valls publicly declared war just a few days ago, but in truth France has been acting as if it was at war with Muslims and their values for a very long time.

 During their 130-year occupancy of Algeria the French segregated most Muslims from European colonists and adopted policies that undermined the indigenous Arab lifestyle. Since then they haven’t been very welcoming toward Muslim immigrants in France, insisting that they give up their traditional ways and integrate into French culture. However, as riots in 2005 suggested, very little effort has been made on the part of the French government or its people to accommodate such integration. Finally, France has been promoting intervention in Syria. In an ill-advised effort to undermine the secular regime of Bashar al-Assad, French governments (all of which have had a misplaced and certainly racist sense of mission civilisatrice toward Syria) have helped finance and equip Syrian rebels. This threatens to be a repeat of the U.S. mistake made in Afghanistan back in the 1980s, because a good number of these Syrian rebels hate the French (and other Western powers) as much as they do al-Assad. 

 Part IV – A Vicious Cycle

 Under the present circumstances, and by this I mean given long-standing foreign policies of the Western powers, there is no end in sight for terrorist attacks such as that in Paris on 12 January 2015 or, for that matter, in New York on 11 September 2001. They will come again and again because they are ripostes to even more violent actions coming from the West. In other words, what we have going here is a vicious cycle. It began with modern imperialism and has been sustained by frankly counterproductive Western policies in the Muslim world – often in support of brutal Arab dictators and racist and expansionist Israelis. What goes around comes around.  

 This conclusion is usually dismissed by Western leaders as blaming the (Western) victims. However, to take this position one must ignore the myriad number of victims in the Middle East and North Africa. So, sadly, it really is a matter of which victims one gives priority to: the ones in the Twin Towers or the ones in Gaza; the ones in the offices of Charlie Weekly or the ones killed by French-backed rebels in Syria.Then there are the dead and injured members of the wedding parties that Western drones see; to find with uncanny regularity; the million dead Iraqi civilians; the dead Afghan civilians, the victims of the French-promoted chaos in Libya. There are our victims and there are their victims. It is victims all around and everyone is out for revenge.

 Part V – A Way Out?

 Is there a way out of this vicious cycle – one that might also uphold a broad and truly universal standard for freedom of speech? Ideally, there is – it is called international law. This is not just any set of laws, but ones that reflect human and civil rights. After World War II there were so many victims of war and terror that international laws and conventions were created to prevent, or at least ameliorate, the practices and policies that victimized millions of innocent people. Updated Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 19 of which supports a broad interpretation of freedom of speech) are examples of these efforts.

 These are very good precedents which, in theory, have many endorsers among the world’s nations. Unfortunately, their influence on practice has always been marginal and even that much has been waning. Particularly in the last fifty years these rules of behavior have been undermined by fading memories of the mid-twentieth century horrors that once made them seem so necessary. In the place of those memories has come a resurgence of narrow-minded nationalism, delusional racism, outright bigotry, and increasingly unchecked instances of brutality. Some might say that is the true nature of human beings at work – their fallen nature. However, I don’t believe this. The Geneva Conventions and Universal Declaration of Human Rights are every bit as much a product of human decision making as are the criminal acts they seek to prevent.

 So, ultimately, we have to ask what sort of a world we want to live in. If part of that answer is a world without terror attacks, then we have to honestly investigate why those attacks take place. And, if that investigation reveals (as it surely will) that Western popular ignorance and intolerance, and the governmental policies they allow, have helped motivate those attacks, then it behooves us to reconsider our attitudes and actions and set new standards for our behavior. The progressive international laws and conventions cited above can serve us as good standards in such an effort. 

 Strangely, there may be a perverse correlation between how much blood is shed and our eventual moment of self-examination. It took two world wars to produce such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How much blood has to be shed before we actually honor them?

 

Source: 
Intifada (Voice of Palestine)

Dear friends of this aggregator

  • Yes, I intentionally removed Newsbud from the aggregator on Mar 22.
  • Newsbud did not block the aggregator, although their editor blocked me on twitter after a comment I made to her
  • As far as I know, the only site that blocks this aggregator is Global Research. I have no idea why!!
  • Please stop recommending Newsbud and Global Research to be added to the aggregator.

Support this site

News Sources

Source Items
James Bovard 25
WWI Hidden History 51
Grayzone Project 380
Pass Blue 327
Dilyana Gaytandzhieva 16
John Pilger 423
The Real News 367
Scrutinised Minds 29
Need To Know News 3183
FEE 5241
Marine Le Pen 403
Francois Asselineau 25
Opassande 53
HAX on 5July 220
Henrik Alexandersson 1164
Mohamed Omar 403
Professors Blog 10
Arg Blatte Talar 40
Angry Foreigner 19
Fritte Fritzson 12
Teologiska rummet 32
Filosofiska rummet 136
Vetenskapsradion Historia 186
Snedtänkt (Kalle Lind) 251
Les Crises 3483
Richard Falk 209
Ian Sinclair 128
SpinWatch 61
Counter Currents 11679
Kafila 594
Gail Malone 43
Transnational Foundation 221
Rick Falkvinge 95
The Duran 10931
Vanessa Beeley 197
Nina Kouprianova 9
MintPress 5963
Paul Craig Roberts 2351
News Junkie Post 65
Nomi Prins 27
Kurt Nimmo 191
Strategic Culture 5841
Sir Ken Robinson 25
Stephan Kinsella 114
Liberty Blitzkrieg 879
Sami Bedouin 65
Consortium News 2685
21 Century Wire 3980
Burning Blogger 324
Stephen Gowans 101
David D. Friedman 161
Anarchist Standard 16
The BRICS Post 1536
Tom Dispatch 605
Levant Report 18
The Saker 4921
The Barnes Review 580
John Friend 520
Psyche Truth 160
Jonathan Cook 162
New Eastern Outlook 4731
School Sucks Project 1810
Giza Death Star 2119
Andrew Gavin Marshall 15
Red Ice Radio 664
GMWatch 2540
Robert Faurisson 150
Espionage History Archive 35
Jay's Analysis 1130
Le 4ème singe 91
Jacob Cohen 219
Agora Vox 18596
Cercle Des Volontaires 452
Panamza 2512
Fairewinds 119
Project Censored 1154
Spy Culture 613
Conspiracy Archive 84
Crystal Clark 11
Timothy Kelly 628
PINAC 1482
The Conscious Resistance 979
Independent Science News 87
The Anti Media 6877
Positive News 820
Brandon Martinez 30
Steven Chovanec 61
Lionel 313
The Mind renewed 455
Natural Society 2627
Yanis Varoufakis 1092
Tragedy & Hope 122
Dr. Tim Ball 114
Web of Debt 161
Porkins Policy Review 453
Conspiracy Watch 174
Eva Bartlett 637
Libyan War Truth 361
DeadLine Live 1916
Kevin Ryan 67
BSNEWS 2114
Aaron Franz 265
Traces of Reality 166
Revelations Radio News 121
Dr. Bruce Levine 157
Peter B Collins 1741
Faux Capitalism 205
Dissident Voice 11662
Climate Audit 227
Donna Laframboise 499
Judith Curry 1174
Geneva Business Insider 40
Media Monarchy 2652
Syria Report 78
Human Rights Investigation 93
Intifada (Voice of Palestine) 1685
Down With Tyranny 13239
Laura Wells Solutions 48
Video Rebel's Blog 465
Revisionist Review 485
Aletho News 22440
ضد العولمة 27
Penny for your thoughts 3287
Northerntruthseeker 2686
كساريات 37
Color Revolutions and Geopolitics 27
Stop Nato 4854
AntiWar.com Blog 3370
AntiWar.com Original Content 7523
Corbett Report 2592
Stop Imperialism 491
Land Destroyer 1276
Webster Tarpley Website 1147

Compiled Feeds

Public Lists

Title Visibility
Funny Public