You Are Not Charlie

Before Robert Bowers stormed into the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh with an automatic rifle and murdered eleven people, he posted his intentions on the social media platform Gab, which is popular among American white supremacists, anti-Semites, and Islamophobes. Gab’s founder, Andrew Torba, often appears in public wearing a green baseball cap that reads “Make Speech Free Again.” Freedom of speech is a very important matter for peddlers of intolerance. Far-right warriors and their enablers interpret it as a right to hate.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of expression. It is one of the fundamental safeguards of individual liberty and a check on those in power. Without free and independent media, without public criticism, dialogue, and the clash of differing opinions, there is neither freedom nor democracy. Freedom of expression includes not only the content we agree with—no matter how convinced we are of our own righteousness—but also that which offends, shocks, or disturbs. This is confirmed by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. But this does not mean that Torba and his ilk are right. Condemning hatred and intolerance does not violate freedom of speech—it protects it.

The Court does not forbid offensive, disturbing, or provocative speech because it believes such speech should be respected or heeded, but because it considers that a democratic society responds better and more effectively through social and political reactions rather than legal sanctions. However, many people—including in Slovenia—under the pretense of defending free speech, are unwilling or unable to mount such a response. This emboldens those who take their manipulation of free speech even further: in the alt-right’s newspeak, any criticism of intolerance or incitement to hatred is itself labeled as “hate speech.”

This turning of fundamental human rights and democratic safeguards on their head would be laughable—if it didn’t have such dangerous consequences for democracy, social stability, and public safety. How we got here is a long and complicated story, but one of the pivotal moments was the "gift" handed to populist bigots by Islamist extremists in their attack on the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. In terrorist attacks, killing is not the goal but a means to an end. This is not in any way a justification for terrorist crimes—on the contrary—but we must understand that fanatics are not necessarily fools. While many of the actual attackers may not be intellectual giants, the same cannot be said for the planners and masterminds behind such acts. Terrorism kills with clear objectives and intentions.

On 7 January 2015, when brothers Saïd and Chérif Kouachi entered the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo armed with a Zastava M70 rifle and several handguns, and murdered twelve people—mostly staff of the magazine—their goal was not to silence one of France and Europe’s most renowned, bold, and provocative satirical voices (they certainly failed at that), but to trigger a long-term social reaction, as planned by their Al-Qaeda handlers. In that, they were very successful. The intended outcome of the attack was to deepen social tensions and legitimize intolerance toward Islam and Muslims in the eyes of many. The attack on Charlie Hebdo helps us understand how the hateful hijacking of freedom of speech in the name of the “right to hate” was born.

The prelude to the Charlie Hebdo attack came in September 2005, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to, as the editors explained, “contribute to the public debate on criticism of Islam and self-censorship.” Merely depicting the Prophet is blasphemous to Muslims, and the content of some cartoons—openly and at times quite rudely mocking the Prophet and his followers—sparked angry protests from Muslims in Europe and around the world.

Personally, I wasn’t convinced by the premise Jyllands-Posten used to justify publishing the cartoons. Publishing content that a part of the population experiences as deeply offensive, without clear social commentary or critical context, seems questionable to me. I don’t see the social benefit of insulting people just to prove that we can insult them. In some parts of the world, adultery is punished by stoning and death; in the Western world, it is—thankfully—completely legal. But that doesn’t mean we should start organizing swinger parties in defense of freedom. “Hey Peter, your wife isn’t home, come on over, let’s defend our culture, faith, and civilization.”

In any case, the bigots quickly created a context for the cartoons with violent protests and death threats. In solidarity with their Danish colleagues, many media outlets began reprinting the cartoons—Charlie Hebdo among them, adding their trademark dose of boldness, rudeness, and dark humor. They regularly mocked other religions too. In the deepening polarization, Al-Qaeda saw an opportunity. They knew that stoking tension and hatred would eventually lead Europeans to cut off the very branch they were sitting on. The planners of the attack fully understood the impact it would have. After the massacre, criticism and condemnation of intolerance became politically risky. Few dared to highlight the difference between hatred and satire. Islamist terrorists had handed Islamophobes a gift they haven’t stopped celebrating. For many, freedom of speech became the right to hate. “Speech,” as Andrew Torba’s cap declares, “is great again.”

The exploitation of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy in the name of intolerance is disgraceful. Charlie Hebdo has always been unapologetic and uncompromising in its satire. Toward everyone. It mocks power, stupidity, corruption, and fanaticism—of all stripes. It often crosses the line, but never in the name of hatred. So, if you want to be Charlie, it’s not enough to just defend freedom of speech—you also have to publicly and clearly condemn intolerance and hate. Every time. Specifically. Firmly. Vague clichés and rhetorical fluff are not enough. If you want to be Charlie, you cannot remain silent. If you truly care about freedom of speech and democracy, you cannot remain silent.

The political beneficiaries of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy are the defenders of illiberal, authoritarian populism—those who tolerate no criticism, especially not satire. If anyone fits the populist label for free and independent media as “enemies of the people,” it is Charlie Hebdo. In the alt-right vision of the world, freedom of speech is meant only for expressing hatred of others—not for criticizing those in power. In that, they are closely aligned with those whose hate and terrorism help pave their path to power. The partnership between extremists on both sides may not be coordinated, but it’s effective. This is not a conspiracy theory—it’s simply that both sides, if not fully aligned, at least share overlapping or complementary goals and visions for how society and the world should be organized and run.