This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2015/jan/08/after-charlie-hebdo-attack-afraid-brave-words-freedom-speech

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
After the Charlie Hebdo attack, let’s not pretend we’re not afraid After the Charlie Hebdo attack, let’s not pretend we’re not afraid
(about 4 hours later)
Atrocities like Wednesday’s brutal assault in Paris are meant to intimidate people and they do. For all the brave words uttered with absolute sincerity since the attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine, those that strike close to home have an effect. We are afraid and we over-react. When the media is directly involved as victim, not observer, the over-reaction is amplified. Atrocities like Wednesday’s brutal assault in Paris are meant to intimidate people, and they do. For all the brave words uttered with absolute sincerity since the attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine, those that strike close to home have an effect. We are afraid and we over-react. When members of the media are directly involved as victims, not observers, the over-reaction is amplified.
As Simon Jenkins reminds us the west’s most seriously ill-judged response to the steady trickle of Islamist provocations against the west – as distinct from Islam’s internal feuds – was the “war on terror” launched by Washington after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. It was a criminal conspiracy, not a war, but it led to Guantánamo Bay and torture chambers. Just what the al-Qaida death cult wanted.As Simon Jenkins reminds us the west’s most seriously ill-judged response to the steady trickle of Islamist provocations against the west – as distinct from Islam’s internal feuds – was the “war on terror” launched by Washington after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. It was a criminal conspiracy, not a war, but it led to Guantánamo Bay and torture chambers. Just what the al-Qaida death cult wanted.
Mass murder at a magazine is a narrower target than the destruction of a Wall St icon (2,000 deaths), the seizure of civilian aircraft, the Pentagon hit and a near-miss on Congress – or was the White House the target of the fourth plane? “Attack on freedom,” Thursday’s papers cry. Well yes, an attack on freedom of speech is very serious, but free speech is not absolute as all our societies demonstrate every day.Mass murder at a magazine is a narrower target than the destruction of a Wall St icon (2,000 deaths), the seizure of civilian aircraft, the Pentagon hit and a near-miss on Congress – or was the White House the target of the fourth plane? “Attack on freedom,” Thursday’s papers cry. Well yes, an attack on freedom of speech is very serious, but free speech is not absolute as all our societies demonstrate every day.
When Sony Pictures’ files were hacked last month (at the instigation of North Korea, the White House concluded) Barack Obama led a defence of free speech – in that case a bad taste comedy, The Interview, about the assassination of NK’s hereditary communist monarch. It sounded a little hollow from a president who has aggressively pursued unruly media sources and whose media – most of it, most of the time – could fairly be described as unadventurously conformist and in thrall to stifling commercial interests and local monopoly.When Sony Pictures’ files were hacked last month (at the instigation of North Korea, the White House concluded) Barack Obama led a defence of free speech – in that case a bad taste comedy, The Interview, about the assassination of NK’s hereditary communist monarch. It sounded a little hollow from a president who has aggressively pursued unruly media sources and whose media – most of it, most of the time – could fairly be described as unadventurously conformist and in thrall to stifling commercial interests and local monopoly.
If you want to see exploitative American commercialism mocked you’d do best to watch The Simpsons – and that’s a kids’ cartoon show, right? Until recently the French media (not Charlie Hebdo, which lives by provocation) was strikingly timid: just think about the elite’s outrage at the arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn for alleged sexual assault against a New York chambermaid. François Hollande, the main beneficiary, no longer enjoys such protection.If you want to see exploitative American commercialism mocked you’d do best to watch The Simpsons – and that’s a kids’ cartoon show, right? Until recently the French media (not Charlie Hebdo, which lives by provocation) was strikingly timid: just think about the elite’s outrage at the arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn for alleged sexual assault against a New York chambermaid. François Hollande, the main beneficiary, no longer enjoys such protection.
None of this is to berate our two allies – or anyone else (see the big picture here). Britain, which has an ancient common law right to free speech, not a constitutional one, tempers it to protect those it deems vulnerable to abuse – blasphemy, obscenity, racism, anti-monarchism, libel, of course; they’ve all been subject to important restriction down the decades.None of this is to berate our two allies – or anyone else (see the big picture here). Britain, which has an ancient common law right to free speech, not a constitutional one, tempers it to protect those it deems vulnerable to abuse – blasphemy, obscenity, racism, anti-monarchism, libel, of course; they’ve all been subject to important restriction down the decades.
Nowadays incitement to terrorism is high on the agenda. Security concerns – real and imagined – are rising. The liberal media’s pride in its willingness to defend ugly journalism – tabloid hounding of footballers’ sex lives in the face of blanket injunctions – is a prime example, but it’s not absolute. The police here are currently getting courts to expose journalists’ sources and overrun the public interest defence.Nowadays incitement to terrorism is high on the agenda. Security concerns – real and imagined – are rising. The liberal media’s pride in its willingness to defend ugly journalism – tabloid hounding of footballers’ sex lives in the face of blanket injunctions – is a prime example, but it’s not absolute. The police here are currently getting courts to expose journalists’ sources and overrun the public interest defence.
But the Daily Mail’s defence of Charlie Hebdo is deeply ironic: it’s just the kind of stuff the Mail would routinely denounce here. Ditto the phone-hacking Murdoch press. We all do some difficult, even brave journalism, but we all have our little hypocrisies which often manifest themselves in self-censorship. This week I have been struck by two such examples – one in print, the other on BBC Radio 4 – where basic questions were not asked because they might have offended contemporary sexual sensibilities. No names, you notice: I am inhibited, too. But the Daily Mail’s defence of Charlie Hebdo is deeply ironic: it’s just the kind of stuff the Mail would routinely denounce here. Ditto the phone-hacking Murdoch press. We all do some difficult, even brave journalism, but we all have our little hypocrisies, which often manifest themselves in self-censorship. This week I have been struck by two such examples – one in print, the other on BBC Radio 4 – where basic questions were not asked because they might have offended contemporary sexual sensibilities. No names, you notice: I am inhibited, too.
Islam is a prime case in point. The moderate Muslim majority – here and elsewhere – are as horrified by the Paris attack as other decent people. But they must often feel abused by western media. The feeling is shared by beleaguered Christians who feel their faith is safely mocked in print and on the airwaves by “brave” satirists who might hesitate to do the same to Islam or even Judaism, behind which secular Israeli politicians sometimes take cover. Did the Salman Rushdie fatwah inhibit publishers? I’d be surprised if it didn’t – though obviously not Charlie Hebdo (I’ve never seen it, let alone tried to read it) which came after them all with a fine lack of discrimination. Islam is a prime case in point. The moderate Muslim majority – here and elsewhere – are as horrified by the Paris attack as other decent people. But they must often feel abused by western media. The feeling is shared by beleaguered Christians, who feel their faith is safely mocked in print and on the airwaves by “brave” satirists who might hesitate to do the same to Islam or even Judaism, behind which secular Israeli politicians sometimes take cover.
Did the Salman Rushdie fatwah inhibit publishers? I’d be surprised if it didn’t – though obviously not Charlie Hebdo (I’ve never seen it, let alone tried to read it) which came after them all with a fine lack of discrimination.
Context always matters. The prime suspects for the Paris shootings are French citizens of Algerian descent. If you don’t know the back story here’s a quick summary in the Daily Mail by Simon Heffer, himself an English nationalist.Context always matters. The prime suspects for the Paris shootings are French citizens of Algerian descent. If you don’t know the back story here’s a quick summary in the Daily Mail by Simon Heffer, himself an English nationalist.
Do we have a legacy of ugly imperial retreat as bad as France in Algeria or Vietnam? Kenya? Cyprus? Malaya? Not quite, I don’t think. India was a more complex tragedy. On top of which France has Europe’s largest Muslim population and aggressively promotes the secular creed of republicanism which proclaims equality and comes down hard on the burkha. There are no-go areas in major French cities which multicultural Britain doesn’t have. Ed Husain writes wisely on this here. Do we have a legacy of ugly imperial retreat as bad as France in Algeria or Vietnam? Kenya? Cyprus? Malaya? Not quite. India was a more complex tragedy. On top of which France has Europe’s largest Muslim population and aggressively promotes the secular creed of republicanism, which proclaims equality and comes down hard on the burqa. There are no-go areas in major French cities which multicultural Britain doesn’t have. Ed Husain writes wisely on this here.
We will all be a bit more careful now. How secure is parliament, a colleague asked aloud on Wednesday as we looked down from the Commons press gallery on armed police who have been there since previous attacks over the years. Pretty safe, I’d say, but nowhere can really be safe from fanaticism, as we have also known for decades. “Keep calm and carry on” has become a cliche slogan for T-shirts and posters, but it’s still good, understated advice. Scared? Sensible people are scared in scary times.We will all be a bit more careful now. How secure is parliament, a colleague asked aloud on Wednesday as we looked down from the Commons press gallery on armed police who have been there since previous attacks over the years. Pretty safe, I’d say, but nowhere can really be safe from fanaticism, as we have also known for decades. “Keep calm and carry on” has become a cliche slogan for T-shirts and posters, but it’s still good, understated advice. Scared? Sensible people are scared in scary times.
In France the Front National will not wait long before resuming its attacks on the “Islamisation” fantasy which brought crowds on to the streets of all-white Dresden in Germany this week. That will inflame tensions. The death cult Islamists want that to happen, too, as they will here where the prevailing tone is still commendably moderate. To that extent we are lucky in our history.In France the Front National will not wait long before resuming its attacks on the “Islamisation” fantasy which brought crowds on to the streets of all-white Dresden in Germany this week. That will inflame tensions. The death cult Islamists want that to happen, too, as they will here where the prevailing tone is still commendably moderate. To that extent we are lucky in our history.
When Frenchmen talk about standing up to terrorism as they did against fascism in the 1940s they are embracing a comforting national myth. In reality the occupation of 1940-44 was a grim accommodation in a deeply divided (republic v church, left v right etc) country. We might not have done better, but we were not forced to choose.When Frenchmen talk about standing up to terrorism as they did against fascism in the 1940s they are embracing a comforting national myth. In reality the occupation of 1940-44 was a grim accommodation in a deeply divided (republic v church, left v right etc) country. We might not have done better, but we were not forced to choose.
In France it led to habits of public and private secrecy which have never been extirpated. Have you heard of the Paris massacre of 1961? France can be sure that Wednesday’s cold-blooded trigger men at Charlie Hebdo know about it. We are all prisoners of our history. In France it led to habits of public and private secrecy which have never been extirpated. Have you heard of the Paris massacre of 1961? France can be sure that Wednesday’s cold-blooded trigger-men at Charlie Hebdo know about it. We are all prisoners of our history.