Following the January 2015 attacks on Paris-based satirical magazine, a few strangely ironic happenings happened. And so many of them had to do with ‘that photo’.
Yep, the photo. The one where world leaders convened on a specially selected, pre-deserted Paris street and made their defiant stand, arm-in-arm, against those that seek to attack our freedom of expression.
Nothing came so ironically as one very astute set of tweets from LSE student Daniel Wickham, quick to point out the hypocrisy of world leaders appearing united in defence of free speech, yet who themselves represent among the most infamous oppressors of a free press. A snapshot of Daniel’s serial tweets reads:
• “Here are some of the staunch defenders of the free press attending the solidarity rally in Paris...”
• “King Abdullah of Jordan, which last year sentenced a Palestinian journalist to 15 years in prison with hard labour.”
• “Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, whose forces killed 7 journalists in Gaza last year (second highest after Syria).”
• “Attorney General of the US, where police in Ferguson have recently detained and assaulted WashPost reporters.”
It goes on.
The ironies were not lost on Charlie Hebdo’s surviving cartoonists, either. They were also quick to deplore the photo’s protagonists for suddenly showing feigned solidarity when they are so often the subjects of Hebdo’s derision.
Attempts to suppress freedom of expression are commonplace, far beyond acts of terrorism or of governments covering their arses. They’re frequently necessary. We have laws that prevent defamation of character being published, and with good reason. Meanwhile there are scant publications not at the behest of their advertising revenue stream.
No, freedom of expression is always under constraint. What is important is that the message can never be silenced, and the attacks on Charlie Hebdo only serve to support that ideal.
The Paris massacre was not an attack on free speech. It was another abhorrent PR stunt, the type of which we’ve seen far too often lately. After all, why fight a noiseless war when you can simply shoot a cartoonist and make every headline and every tweet, everywhere?
What was not ironic, profiteering or opportunistic, as some commentators have opined, was the magazine’s reaction. Charlie Hebdo published three million copies of the ‘survivalists’ issue’ (versus normal circulation of about 60,000) – adorned with a cartoon of a sobbing Prophet underneath the moniker "All is forgiven" – because they had to.
It wasn't extortionate; it was a retaliatory blow of epic proportion, such that the message was heard loud and clear. It was defiantly admirable and above all, human - another carnation daintily threaded down the barrel of a rifle.
Freedom of expression – and with it let’s not forget the printed press, standing tall on a digital battleground – are swords to wield. That comes with a responsibility, of course, but I think Charlie’s was measured and the biggest irony is how much that ideal scares terrorists, politicians and monopolising corporations alike.
Expression is a message. For artists, journalists, cartoonists, expressionists, that is a faith to defend to the hilt. You could say it’s a faith that pre-dates faith itself: what is faith without its message?
Je suis Charlie, in that I strive to inform, warn, question and entertain. My message is my most human trait – the same reason a Neanderthal looked at a wall and saw a canvas on which to tell his buddies where to find all the tasty deer.
In the case of the cartoons, the method of expression may be controversial, but let’s not forget the message was only ever aimed at the violent extremists – to say that they cannot hold themselves beyond question and above others by threat of intimidation. It‘s a method that has offended people on the periphery – who it should be said have the right to be offended. No one has a right to kill. Hebdo’s ability to express that message is the reason that its cartoonists put themselves in harm’s way – as so many journalists and artists continue to do in conflicts and trouble spots worldwide – and we should hold that dearest of all as humans.
PR brought the world leaders, but humanity brought the world to the streets, none more defiantly than the Parisians who, the gunmen still at large and the threat to the city palpable, also stood in harm’s way.
Freedom of expression is not under threat; it is the threat. It’s a threat that makes terrorists shoot cartoonists and it’s a threat that puts authorities on the defensive – arm-in-arm. They cower, equally and oppositely, behind the veneer of freedom of expression’s political smokescreen. We embody it. It is the power of that message that only gets louder, and Charlie Hebdo showed that.
To quote one of Hebdo's surviving cartoonists on the magazine's decision to print the survivalists’ issue, she said, simply: "It wasn't necessary, but it was important".
Yep, the photo. The one where world leaders convened on a specially selected, pre-deserted Paris street and made their defiant stand, arm-in-arm, against those that seek to attack our freedom of expression.
Nothing came so ironically as one very astute set of tweets from LSE student Daniel Wickham, quick to point out the hypocrisy of world leaders appearing united in defence of free speech, yet who themselves represent among the most infamous oppressors of a free press. A snapshot of Daniel’s serial tweets reads:
• “Here are some of the staunch defenders of the free press attending the solidarity rally in Paris...”
• “King Abdullah of Jordan, which last year sentenced a Palestinian journalist to 15 years in prison with hard labour.”
• “Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, whose forces killed 7 journalists in Gaza last year (second highest after Syria).”
• “Attorney General of the US, where police in Ferguson have recently detained and assaulted WashPost reporters.”
It goes on.
The ironies were not lost on Charlie Hebdo’s surviving cartoonists, either. They were also quick to deplore the photo’s protagonists for suddenly showing feigned solidarity when they are so often the subjects of Hebdo’s derision.
Attempts to suppress freedom of expression are commonplace, far beyond acts of terrorism or of governments covering their arses. They’re frequently necessary. We have laws that prevent defamation of character being published, and with good reason. Meanwhile there are scant publications not at the behest of their advertising revenue stream.
No, freedom of expression is always under constraint. What is important is that the message can never be silenced, and the attacks on Charlie Hebdo only serve to support that ideal.
The Paris massacre was not an attack on free speech. It was another abhorrent PR stunt, the type of which we’ve seen far too often lately. After all, why fight a noiseless war when you can simply shoot a cartoonist and make every headline and every tweet, everywhere?
What was not ironic, profiteering or opportunistic, as some commentators have opined, was the magazine’s reaction. Charlie Hebdo published three million copies of the ‘survivalists’ issue’ (versus normal circulation of about 60,000) – adorned with a cartoon of a sobbing Prophet underneath the moniker "All is forgiven" – because they had to.
It wasn't extortionate; it was a retaliatory blow of epic proportion, such that the message was heard loud and clear. It was defiantly admirable and above all, human - another carnation daintily threaded down the barrel of a rifle.
Freedom of expression – and with it let’s not forget the printed press, standing tall on a digital battleground – are swords to wield. That comes with a responsibility, of course, but I think Charlie’s was measured and the biggest irony is how much that ideal scares terrorists, politicians and monopolising corporations alike.
Expression is a message. For artists, journalists, cartoonists, expressionists, that is a faith to defend to the hilt. You could say it’s a faith that pre-dates faith itself: what is faith without its message?
Je suis Charlie, in that I strive to inform, warn, question and entertain. My message is my most human trait – the same reason a Neanderthal looked at a wall and saw a canvas on which to tell his buddies where to find all the tasty deer.
In the case of the cartoons, the method of expression may be controversial, but let’s not forget the message was only ever aimed at the violent extremists – to say that they cannot hold themselves beyond question and above others by threat of intimidation. It‘s a method that has offended people on the periphery – who it should be said have the right to be offended. No one has a right to kill. Hebdo’s ability to express that message is the reason that its cartoonists put themselves in harm’s way – as so many journalists and artists continue to do in conflicts and trouble spots worldwide – and we should hold that dearest of all as humans.
PR brought the world leaders, but humanity brought the world to the streets, none more defiantly than the Parisians who, the gunmen still at large and the threat to the city palpable, also stood in harm’s way.
Freedom of expression is not under threat; it is the threat. It’s a threat that makes terrorists shoot cartoonists and it’s a threat that puts authorities on the defensive – arm-in-arm. They cower, equally and oppositely, behind the veneer of freedom of expression’s political smokescreen. We embody it. It is the power of that message that only gets louder, and Charlie Hebdo showed that.
To quote one of Hebdo's surviving cartoonists on the magazine's decision to print the survivalists’ issue, she said, simply: "It wasn't necessary, but it was important".