The Charlie Hebdo attack

Some of the country’s best-known cartoonists were killed. One of the suspected attackers reportedly told a French newspaper over the phone that he had been sent to carry out the attack by al-Qaeda’s Yemen branch known as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which claimed responsibility, saying it was to avenge the honour of Prophet […]

Some of the country’s best-known cartoonists were killed. One of the suspected attackers reportedly told a French newspaper over the phone that he had been sent to carry out the attack by al-Qaeda’s Yemen branch known as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which claimed responsibility, saying it was to avenge the honour of Prophet Mohammed. Charlie Hebdo is known to have published several cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in irreverent poses, and its management was warned previously about the risks.  French President François Hollande said it was a “terrorist attack of exceptional brutality”, believed to be the deadliest in the country since 1961.  Charlie Hebdo’s offices were firebombed in 2011 when it printed a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed on its cover. In 2012, a cartoon appeared on its pages depicting the prophet in unflattering light.  One report said Charlie Hebdo’s “irreverent, crass and foe to just about every religion, has been the target of Islamist rage for the better part of a decade”.   In 2007, two French Muslim groups took the newspaper to court for deciding to publish a dozen Danish newspaper cartoons of Muhammad. The case was rejected in French court, which determined that the “cartoons were covered by freedom of expression laws and were not an attack on Islam. At the time, Stéphane “Charb” Charbonnier, the newspaper’s editor in chief and cartoonist, said “This is the first time we have been physically attacked, but we won’t let it get to us”. The French police also called Charbonnier and asked the newspaper to reconsider publishing the cartoons. The White House was critical of Charlie Hebdo’s decision, questioning the editors’ judgment. But Charbonnier would not listen; he was among the dead in last week’s attack.  
The attack spiralled into hostage taking and hostilities across Paris and its suburbs. A newspaper in the German city of Hamburg that reprinted caricatures of Prophet Muhammad from Charlie Hebdo cartoons was also attacked. The regional tabloid Hamburger Morgenpost was attacked on Sunday after it splashed three Charlie Hebdo cartoons on its front page following the Paris incident.  The nearly 4 million-man march through Paris that the French authorities called to reaffirm the beliefs in the values of freedom of speech and expression was a political event that will benefit Hollande, whose sagging approval rating was a major concern for his party. The attendance by many world leaders, from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, at the solidarity Je suis Charlie (I am Charlie) rally did not mask the fact French-indeed western- society needs to ask the hard question whether the freedom of speech and expression that it extols so much should be without caveats, such as respecting the sensibilities of others’ religions and beliefs.
 It is obvious that the Paris attack was planned over a long period. It could have been avoided, or at least mitigated, if the magazine’s publishers had considered the sensibilities of the 20 percent of French population that are Muslims, and had heeded the moderating advice of the politicians. Individuals and their careers have been destroyed in the past due to unguarded statements in the name of values that are actually not without checks. If they were, there would be no legislation in several countries in Europe and the United States to punish people who deny the Holocaust.
Of course, the attack and the resulting carnage are condemnable; a more meaningful engagement could have produced a better outcome.   No problem can be solved through violence, as innocent people get caught up in the crossfire, as in this case.
The office of U.S. President Barack Obama, who did not attend the Paris Match,  announced this week that it was convening its own international forum next month to “highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting, or inspiring individuals or groups in the U.S. and abroad to commit acts of violence.”  One important issue that must be included in the agenda is the question whether lampooning and denigrating religious symbols in any medium should not be exempted from claims to freedom of speech and expression.