In the aftermath of the recent massacre of journalists
working at the satirical publication Charlie
Hebdo at the hands of terrorists, the citizens of Paris, France, and many others
throughout the world, donned clothing and brandished signs bearing the mantra
‘Je Suis Charlie,’ or ‘We Are Charlie.’
This was done in support of the Charlie
Hebdo publication, and was a symbolic and defiant gesture to let the
perpetrators (and those of their ilk) know that the supporters of the victims
would not be intimidated or deterred from living life in the manner they
choose.
To be abundantly clear, these were barbaric, horrendous, and
unwarranted murders of innocent people.
There is no justification for such inhumanity…AT ALL!!!
With that stated, I must admit that I disagree with the
common media characterization of Charlie
Hebdo as merely a satirical publication.
Though I’d never heard of Charlie
Hebdo prior to this event, I have no doubt there have been many clever (and
indeed satirical) articles dreamed up and published by the journal. However many of the works that have come to
light in the days following the attack do not, in my opinion, fall underneath
the category of satire. Instead many of
these works appear to be simply insulting without transformative value.
There is no debating that satire can play a very vital role
in society. Satires (whether in print,
television or the movies) have been used to challenge the actions of those in
power, as well as the thinking of the general population on a wide range of
issues. For example, television shows like
Saturday Night Live, have satirically
challenged every US President since the show’s inception, regardless of
political affiliation. This has helped
to challenge our leaders on issues as diverse as race relations and fiscal
responsibility. This “poking at the bear”
nature of satire is what makes it such a potent tool, because it deconstructs
negligence and misbehavior by powerful individuals, while addressing perverse
societal norms.
Satire is not the same as being unnecessarily insulting or
offensive.
Just because Charlie
Hebdo made any and all religious institutions (e.g. Christianity, Islam,
Judaism, Catholicism) the subject of its ire doesn’t make any or all of its
works socially valuable; and it certainly doesn’t make the work satire. Of the half-dozen or so Charlie Hebdo publications I saw pertaining to Islam, I found them
distasteful, but more importantly, I fail to see how those works were meant to
benefit any of the 7 Billion people on planet Earth. Other than being willfully, knowingly and outright
offensive to Muslims, they seemed to address none of the gripes many people
have with how certain factions of those professing Islam think, behave
and operate…and there are indeed gripes to be had and addressed.
I do not think for one moment that a thoughtful satire would
necessarily go over well with many in the Islamic community, especially if it
includes the image of The Prophet.
However, I can’t get onboard with the ‘Je Suis Charlie’ mantra knowing
that many of the satires used by Charlie
Hebdo weren’t satires at all, but rather insulting bits a print.
But you know what, in addition to the ‘Je Suis Charlie’
mantra came the symbolic gesture of merely carrying an ink pen and holding it
high in the air. Though some interpreted
this gesture as being a nod to free speech, I interpreted it as a powerful
reminder of the age old adage that ‘the pen is mightier than the sword!’
Now there’s a message I can fully support!
-Maelstrom
