Nous sommes Charlie Hebdo

I've been writing this on and off for two days. I don't feel I have quite got it right. I think it reads as too apologist, too weak in what it advocates, and probably too cowardly. But I cannot advocate violent retaliation, and will not advocate for people to endanger themselves in some spirit of solidarity.

Let me know what you think.
______

This quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy sprung into my head yesterday (not fully formed obviously - I had to look it up).

"The two opposing leaders were meeting for the last time. A dreadful silence fell across the conference table as the commander of the Vl'hurgs, resplendent in his black jewelled battle shorts, gazed levelly at the G'Gugvuntt leader squatting opposite him in a cloud of green sweet-smelling steam, and, with a million sleek and horribly beweaponed star cruisers poised to unleash electric death at his single word of command, challenged the vile creature to take back what it had said about his mother."

My point is of course that words do hurt, often in a much nastier way than sticks or stones. Adams, in writing this, however points to the absurdity of over-reaction, here through interplanetary conflict, as the consequence of insult.

What then of Charlie Hebdo?

We in the West of course condemn the killings without reservation. We point to freedom of speech and to the rule of law. 

Freedom of speech is not an unqualified right. Society sets its norms for behaviour, both through civil sanctions (defamation law here) and also the criminal (like malicious communications or obscene publications laws). Not all of us agree with the outcome of these laws - I struggle to see why words on Twitter should lead to anyone being locked up. But if enough of society had a problem with the laws they would change. And they will change as attitudes change. 

If we do not like a law, it does not generally exempt us from following it. The state would prefer that we lobbied for change, whilst complying with the law that is. And sometimes people don't want to do that - probably because they feel that they will not be heard. The examples of Gandhi and Rosa Parks will be familiar to many of you. Non violent direct action is the catch-all phrase.

If words, or pictures, hurt me, I have the right to be offended. I have the right to protest. I may not have the right to occupy the offices of the publication concerned, but if I did so in a non-violent way the legal sanctions would be limited.

I do not have the right to terrorise, to maim or to kill. And neither does anyone else. 

That's the easy bit. Unfortunately the difficult bits are, well, difficult.

What are we as society to do with those who do not accept these norms? And who seek to impose their views by force. Do we attempt to impose our views on them by force? Do we exclude those who approve of violent reaction from society? For what Orwell called 'thought crime'. Even if you think we should (I do not) then how do we police this? How do we address the dozens (hundreds? thousands?) who think that insulting their religion does justify violence? How do we know who they are? We can educate, we can build bridges. But oppression is a perfect recruiting tool for extremists. To move down that route is folly.

And what of those who seek to retaliate, not against the perpetrators, but against the religion? The fire-bombers of mosques etc. We must react with the full force of the law for those who do it, but do we also criminalise those who think of it? No, we should not and cannot.

It feels that the West, which has known freedom, peace and prosperity for 70 years now, so that none of us really know much different, is on the edge of an era where we have none of these things. This worries me hugely, and it should worry you. But the price of peace cannot be the removal of freedom. 

We should look to the example of Norway, of the grace and dignity with which it handled the aftermath of its own recent horrors. And we should try to be the same. 

Do we continue to criticise Islam? This is the truly difficult point here.The answer cannot be 'No'. It cannot be that the gun can silence freedom. But by answering 'Yes', we have to recognise that these will not be the last deaths to follow.

The press, at least in the UK, have declined to publish the cartoons when many felt that would be a show of solidarity with their fallen colleagues. I do not see this as cowardice. Any of us may feel that we are willing to lay down our lives for a cause. But none of us should feel the right to lay down the lives of others on our behalf. Publications are right to protect their staff from this sort of outrage. Not only are they are legally required to do this, but morally obliged also.

The press is in a difficult position here. They face the same issues as all of us, but in the public eye. They cannot give in to terrorism, but the individuals within the papers are humans, with human fears, and we cannot condemn them for that.

There are no easy answers. There is no magic switch. We can speculate about whether Western involvement in the Middle East has caused or accelerated this, but such speculation does not solve the problem.

There will be more terrorism as the months and years go by. We have to cling to what we hold dear, to freedom, and to law. We must remember the bravery of the staff at Charlie Hebdo, and not let it be in vain. But martyrdom is surely too heavy a price to pay.