Charlie, encore une fois...
Eliot Weinberger
The frat-boy humour magazine Charlie Hebdo is unfortunately back in the news. Six writers who were scheduled to be 'table hosts' at the annual PEN American Center gala in New York – tickets start at $1250 – have refused to attend after it was announced that the surviving staff of Charlie was to be awarded the PEN/Toni and James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression Courage Award at the dinner. The response to the six has been almost uniformly negative. Salman Rushdie, for one, who has turned PEN American into his little fiefdom, charmingly tweeted that they are 'pussies'. Others have even accused the writers of being apologists for terrorism.
Any discussion of Charlie must begin with the requisite throat-clearing. Of course one believes in absolute freedom of speech. Of course the murder of the magazine’s cartoonists and editors was deplorable. But the question here is not whether they are victims of free speech – of course they are – but whether they are heroes of free speech, deserving of a prize for 'courage'. To put it another way: Are they Pim Fortuyn or Martin Luther King?
They are indeed courageous for 'soldiering on amid devastating loss', as a PEN statement puts it. The same is equally true for many hate groups, terrorist cells and so on. But an award to Charlie celebrates them not only for continuing to speak. It implicitly affirms that what they have to say is valuable.
Charlie’s defenders tend to make three arguments: first, that they are the continuation of a long line of French satirists, from Voltaire on. (To which one can only sigh: poor France!) Second, that they are 'equal opportunity' offenders. This neatly avoids the fact that, for a bunch of white guys in a Catholic country, making fun of the pope is not the same as categorising a beleaguered minority in that country as moronic towel-heads. Third, we have been told that Charlie is actually anti-racist. When they portray the minister of justice, Christiane Taubira, who is black, as a monkey, or the pregnant sex slaves of Boko Haram as welfare queens, they are not satirising black people, but white people who vilify black people. It’s a fine distinction, no doubt lost on anyone who is not white.
If PEN wants to award the courageous, there are many in the world who are facing imprisonment, exile and death for leaking government documents, exposing corruption and repression, genuinely speaking out in the name of freedom of expression. This PEN award is merely the latest instance in the now-rampant free expression of gentlemanly Islamophobia.
Comments
The cowardly thing would have been to STFU, no ?
As for the Christiane Taubira cartoon, yes, it was satirizing a pre-existing racist caricature in an extreme-right magazine. Those interested in such "fine distinctions" can find detailed parsings of this and other cartoons (including the one about "welfare queens") at the website Understanding Charlie Hebdo: http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/.
They may also be interested to learn that the weekly magazine devoted a grand total of...seven covers to the subject of Islam during the ten years preceding the attack (a third of the number targeting Catholicism).
There is no free speech in France, or the UK. A writer for Hebdo was fired and brought up on charges for one snide anti-semitic comment; no one was fired or arrested for that cartoon. Under hate speech laws the powerful define what's hate and what's satire.
The marchers in Paris were not marching for freedom of speech; they were not marching against the existence of hate speech laws. They were defending Charlie Hebdo as such. And now so is PEN.
Give the award to Hebdo and Dieudonné and we'll call it a day. But PEN won't do that, because they're cowards.
Understanding Charlie Hebdo has a useful gloss on the cartoon to which your refer:
At the time of publication, the Pope had recently visited a number of African countries, namely Zaire, Congo, Kenya, Ghana, Upper Volta and Côte d'Ivoire. This visit finished on the 12th of May 1980, and the press coverage of this visit was still fresh in the minds of the French, including the controversy surrounding the Pope's condemnation of the use of condoms. Shortly after this, the Pope visited France (pilgrimage to Lisieux, 30 May 1980). The cartoon depicts the crowds that gathered during this visit.
The caption in the cartoon can be read as the thoughts of the Pope. Charlie Hebdo are mocking the French reaction to the Pope's visit (frenetic adoration), by showing that the Pope thinks of them, and Africans, with tremendous contempt (note that the Pope's eyes are not yellow, possibly indicating he is not under the same feverish delusions as his admirers). This comparison with Africans further adds to the irony of the situation: the admirers are idolising a racist.
http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/
The interventions in Mali and the Central African Republic have explicit UN authorization and were carried out reluctantly to avoid imminent humanitarian and geo-political catastrophe. There is no comparison with Iraq or Afghanistan.
Hollande, for all his faults, is indeed not Bush and has responded to the atrocities with restraint. There's been no emergency legislation, no attack on Yemen, and no dispatch of suspects to Devil's Island. Get a grip.
In London or Paris I could have someone arrested for calling me a kike.
And explain to me the subtle humor of the new cartoon of drowning refugees. Ask youself if any of those cartoons would fare in the US. And ask Francophone and French non-whites what they think. My friends grit their teeth.
Surely there were some obvious candidates for the PEN accolade: Chelsea Manning locked up for revealing the truth, Edward Snowden forced into exile for the same offence and revealing widespread surveillance by his own government on a global scale. PEN always plays it safe, in this case ultra safe. Congratulations to the six writers who boycotted this poor people's banquet. Wish there were more of them.
Apart from anything else, some of the array of 'world leaders' who had the gall (like Bibi Netanyahu, who was there largely grandstanding in view of the pending election in Israel) to come along to Paris to trumpet their support for free speech was disgusting: Russia? (Sergei Lavrov) Egypt? (Sameh Shoukry, foreign minister) Turkey? (Ahmet Davutoglu, prime minister).
The list goes on...
This takes nothing away from the nature of the murders: it is just a reflection on the hypocrisy of those who think that such a gesture somehow washes their own sins away.
Brief reminder - the PEN award is not going to France, the French government or the French people.
You want French satire, go to 'Canard Enchaïné'...
There is a difference between feeling that the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo should be able to write what they like in safety (which I strongly do), and awarding behaviour that (to me) is a reminiscent of the bully in the schoolyard, and often racist. And, as many have said, I believe satire should be used as a weapon against the powerful not against the alienated and disenfranchised. But that's just my opinion - thankfully shared by greats like Carey, Prose, Cole et al.
http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/04/03/an-appeal-to-pen-exec-director-suzanne-nossel-must-go/
I'd like you to respond to the above comments because none of your co-signees have had the gumption to appear in print and those of us (everyone I know no exceptions) find your stance baffling even before it make me angry with tis infantile leftism that does real leftism no good (or the people it is intended to help). Please to read if you have not done so yet at least the following articles by people who are very well informed about Charlie Hebdo's actual stances and the nature of its humor because they read it regularly and know the French scene well. If after reading them you still think CH was Racist and Islamophobic I'd be interested to know why. What about the articles is false or wrong? Do you have something more probative to offer?
http://www.understandingcharli...
http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog...
https://ricochet.media/en/292/...
Weinberger says: "It’s a fine distinction, no doubt lost on anyone who is not white."
No - it's not a fine distinction. It's simple and easy to grasp.
The cartoon was drawn by Charb, an atheist who participated in anti-racist campaigns for MRAP (Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples). He was murdered on January 7.
As for non-white people not getting it, you could check that with Charb's ex partner, Jeannette Bougrab, the ethnic Algerian former chair of the French Equal Opportunities and Anti-Discrimination Commission.
You *might* say the Taubira cartoon is misjudged and that using a racist image in this way is itself inescapably racist. I think that would be mistaken but it's a perfectly reasonable view. Maybe some of the Charlie Hebdo stuff was misjudged. But to not even attempt to understand what the cartoonist was *trying* to do is either dishonest or stupid.
http://www.lesinrocks.com/inrocks.tv/sophia-aram-a-emmanuel-todd-merci-de-prendre-la-defense-des-musulmans/
Her response? ‘Stop worrying about us. The great majority of the Muslim and immigrant population of France are very happy to live in a secular country, where freedom of speech is not something to be negotiated on the altar of condescension. And guess what, for quite a lot of us, that’s actually the very reason we have chosen to live here. Calm down and treat us like adults. That’s the best way to respect us, M. Todd.’
I’m happy to translate the rest for those who don’t understand French. It’s about time that real live French Muslim women’s voices were heard in this debate.
By the way, if you mention Voltaire, you should be happy to know (but do you know?) that he was far tougher with religious faith, islamic or other, than Charlie. You would have argued that catholicism was a beleaguered minority ... oh sorry!
Another stupidity: "phobia" means "fear" and does nor have anything to do with racism (anyway, islam is not a race). Of course, we should not be afraid of the Islamic State: poor guys, they are just lost souls in search of a paradise where they can rape virgins.
Finally, you are right: Charlie does not write the best literature. And IS's beheaded victims are just minorities.
• CH was not an “equal opportunity offender.” Under pressure from Jewish circles in fired the cartoonist Siné for a possible anti-Semitic drawing. CH lost the case for wrongful dismissal in court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9
• That the state should not regulate free speech is self-evident.
• In nature and society there are unspoken, flexible, and negotiable rules of reciprocally “acceptable” behavior. Identity is a form of cultural expression of such boundaries. We negotiate them every minute of the day. “No preset set rule” does not mean “no rule.”
• Whether in the age of internet and worldwide instant dispersal of images and news “in the face politics” is advisable, not to speak of a right, is debatable. Since by definition there always is an identity at the bottom of the pile, resentment and revolt is preordained.
Louis XIV allegedly proclaimed “L’état c’est moi” (he never ruled so, but that’s another matter). Today everyone proclaims the same. The assertion is more than questionable, and it may be unsustainable in a complex society as ours.
Categorical “value” argument is sterile. It is simply posturing, as it ignores time. When is it opportune to assert the value? The Renaissance first grappled with secular time (Castiglione della Casa) – but already Ulysses was the master of timing (Metis is all about planning and timing).
Modern state institutions are rules to articulate values in time. We are losing the sense of time, as we mix past and present in our arguments. In a rush to create eutopia on earth, we may be forgetting the most important fact: there is no time there.
Alas, we live in time.