The killing of a dozen people at the Paris offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo left one thing starkly clear – the distinction between “them” and “us.” It is not about religion, ethnicity, politics or nationality. The difference is simpler than that and more dangerous.
There are some people – and we count ourselves among them – whose most dearly held values include practicing and defending freedom of speech and expression in all forms. We cherish our right to speak freely and respect others’ right to do the same.
Then there are those who think they have the right to control what others say, draw or write. That group includes members of all faiths, represents leftist and right-wing thinking, speaks a variety of languages and hails from all parts of the world. Not all begin with killing, but violence is never far off.
The killers in France appear to have been radical Muslims, but that is as much a red herring as an explanation. The belief that they have the right to control what others have to say is shared by the regimes in Cuba and Venezuela, by Russia’s Vladimir Putin and by the mullahs in Iran. It was central to both the Nazis and to Communism, and it pops up far too often in democracies – including ours.
Similar thinking can be seen on occasion in school boards or state and local governments. It is at the heart of Washington’s recurring obsession with leaks.
The Paris shootings have sparked push back around the world with protesters carrying signs that read “Je suis Charlie.” That means “I am Charlie,” but the French phrase immediately went viral and has also been used to mean “we are Charlie.” We can only hope that sentiment endures.
Charlie Hebdo’s staples are satire, mockery and humor. (The Charlie in the magazine’s name refers to Charlie Brown from “Peanuts.” Hebdo is short for the French word for weekly publication.) It makes fun of famous people and powerful institutions, often by way of cartoons and caricatures on its cover.
And it is an equal-opportunity offender. It has mocked retired Pope Benedict XVI and former French President Nicolas Sarkozy. One cover showed an Orthodox Jew kissing a Nazi soldier. Another had the former head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, riding in a Rolls Royce through a cloud of condoms. Still another showed the Prophet Mohammed as “guest editor,” saying “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter! (See thedailybeast.com for those and other examples.)
Whether any of that is funny or deserved is irrelevant. So too is whether it is offensive. The bulk of meaningful expression is at some point offensive to somebody.
Most Americans have learned that if we do not like what we are seeing or hearing, we simply move on. Nobody has to listen to a given speaker, look at pornography or watch the other side’s news channel.
But there are those who cannot accept that views contrary or offensive to their own may also be expressed. The day the “100 lashes” issue came out, Charlie Hebdo’s office was fire bombed and its website was hacked.
In light of that sort of response, the solidarity expressed by those saying “I am Charlie” is heartening, even though on one level we are not all Charlie. Few Americans are gratuitously offensive, and fewer still risk death for speaking out.
But the killers in Paris attacked us as well. By murdering people for speaking their minds, they struck at the foundation of our freedom and our democracy. And in that we are Charlie. We must be.
