There is no denying that the shootings at the office of the Charlie Hebdo publication was a disgusting attack with baseless reasoning. The silver lining to this dark cloud was that it united France and the world under the banner of freedom of expression and made all cartoonists stand a little taller with pride. However, despite the unity that is felt, this atrocity has also served to highlight a darker underbelly that merits new discussion.
Charlie Hebdo has long been known as a satirical publication that pokes fun at far-right politics, cultures, Catholicism, Judaism, Israel, and of course, Islam. It was unsuccessfully sued in 2006 by Islamic organizations, has been fire-bombed, and had its website hacked. Despite all of this, it continued to bravely – or stupidly, depending on your perspective – publish material highly offensive to Islamic people.
In light of its history, some might say it that the Jan. 7 shooting at Charlie Hebdo was the latest escalation of mounting tensions that resulted from the company’s publications. Here’s where things get dicey: considering the violent nature of this religion’s extremists and considering France has Europe’s largest Muslim and Jewish populations, would it be fair to say that the publication had been goading a violent reaction for some time? To be clear, no attack like that is ever justified, but at what point does freedom of expression become prodding the proverbial beast?
It’s an argument that dates back as far and wide as the popular North American TV shows, South Park and Family Guys. These shows show no discrimination when it comes to insulting anyone and anything. Freedom of expression is one thing, but at what point does it cross the line and become hate speech? Is it when a cartoon is printed depicting the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in a stark and frankly insulting sexual position? Or would it be when it illustrates a holy figure getting shot through the Koran he’s holding with a text saying, “The Koran is s*** – it doesn’t stop bullets”? Charlie Hebdo published both of these within the last five years (and was sued both times).
On the one hand, any journalist will tell you that freedom of expression is a right and should never be restricted. However, any responsible journalist will also tell you that there are some lines that don’t need to be crossed. While those aforementioned cartoons may have been published as visual commentary on current societal issues at the time, they are still highly insulting and push personal biases rather than offer objective commentary for debate. A good newsworthy cartoon highlights by way of exaggeration what’s both wrong and right in society. It is a caricature of what’s current to simplify the issue and make a point.
The Charlie Hebdo attack begs the question of when to draw the line between freedom of expression and tact. Cartoons are an especially dangerous tool if not used correctly because while visual simplification of an issue is usually helpful and often humourous, it can also edge into insulting mockery that can promote stereotypes, racism, etc. A quick Google search can pull up numerous examples from the mid-1900s showing racist caricatures of black people and Asian people as examples.
There is a responsibility all cartoonists bear where sensitivity to race, religion, culture, etc. needs to be shown in order to prevent – or at least not provoke – issues like stereotyping and racism. This is especially true for cartoonists because they don’t have the luxury of providing additional information to explain the criticism of the issue in a fair manner.
With that said, it was obvious that Charlie Hebdo was anything but fair in its illustrations. The editor who was killed, Stéphane Charbonnier, even admitted that his publications were pushing his agenda by mocking Islam “until it was as banal as Catholicism.” How is that responsible? It isn’t journalism by any means as it lacks any attempt at objectivity or fairness. So where does the responsibility for content lie?
At the end of the day, the shooting at Charlie Hebdo was a sad and tragic event. No one deserved to die like that and the terrorists need to take full responsibility. However, this situation opens the discussion as to where the line should be drawn between freedom of expression and responsibility to sensitivity.
