On January 7, attention turned towards the streets of Paris. Three masked gunmen armed with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades launched an attack on the French satirical news magazine Charlie Hebdo.
Twelve people were killed in the attack, including eight Charlie Hebdo employees. They include the editor, four cartoonists, two columnists and a proofreader. Eleven other individuals were wounded.
The attack was a response to a number of satirical cartoons depicting Islam in an unflattering manner. This is not the first time the magazine was targeted. In 2011 its offices were fire-bombed after publishing similar cartoons.
The public response has fluctuated between shock at the brutality of the attacks and outright anger. The social media was abuzz with people posting pictures and messages of solidarity with the victims.
The significance of the attack was not lost; the attack did not target a magazine but was aimed to unsettle the very foundations of free speech. The attack seemed to undermine the axiom attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
It is most unfortunate that some Muslim places of worship in two French towns were fired upon following the attack. The Charlie Hebdo shootings and other acts of terror should not serve to cement a misguided common identity attributed to Islam. This hatred is counterproductive and may serve to further alienate some segments of the community.
These acts, however, demonstrate increasingly worrying trends which must not be disregarded.
The most disturbing development is that home-grown terror is now a reality which cannot be ignored any longer. The three gunmen are French nationals who embraced an extremist ideology. This detail comes in the wake of other reports citing a number of individuals from Western Europe who have been recruited by Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Moreover, in recent years, a number of extremist preachers and terrorist cells have been uncovered in several countries.
Home-grown terror is a sure sign of a three-fold policy failure. Firstly, it shows that the creation of communities without an attempt to integrate and create genuine and open dialogue will inevitably lead to alienation and resentment. Secondly, the well-oiled propaganda machine operated by some extremists is successfully infiltrating these alienated segments. Thirdly, security and intelligence groups are increasingly under pressure to try to uncover and quell this reality.
This attack did not target a magazine but was aimed to unsettle the very foundations of free speech
Although terrorists form a very small minority of the population, their modus operandi has a capacity to wreak havoc and instil fear.
Charlie Hebdo is perhaps the ultimate symbol of what some groups resent – an irreverent, anti-religious, politically incorrect satire magazine that holds nothing sacred. Its targets have included all religions, including Judaism and Christianity.
In the aftermath of the attacks, the deputy editor of the Catholic Herald, Ed West, made a pertinent remark on the relationship between satire and religion: “While mocking a religious group may be unkind, once members of that group begin to threaten people for doing so, then making fun of them becomes a duty.” The same principle should apply to political groups.
West adds: “All newspapers, like any commercial venture, must be careful about offending and losing customers – it’s how the free market encourages politeness and tolerance. But when people start censoring out of fear, that is another thing altogether.”
The most dangerous outcome of this attack is that fear will prevail, thereby further eroding freedom of speech. This freedom has already been weakened by unwarranted political correctness and unnecessary self-censorship. Public debate will be much poorer and ineffective if this trend prevails.
Another dangerous outcome is that knee-jerk reactions will prevail over more reasoned responses. Populism has been gaining a foothold in a number of European nations, and these attacks are likely to fuel such political discourse.
Making reference to ‘war’ may be effective rhetorically, however, it may also please extremists who have long been arguing that they are at war with the West.
The primary response should be an uncompromising reaffirmation of freedom of speech. Charlie Hebdo has already said it will go to print next week. This should be the leading act, rather than a lone act of defiance.
Freedom of speech, however, stops where the same right is used to rob others of their own fundamental freedoms. Thus, an uncompromising stifling of extremist propaganda is a necessary precondition to defeat this form of terrorism.
This form of terrorism is a challenge which unfolds on two fronts; in training camps in the Middle and Near East, and domestically among disenchanted and disengaged individuals. The security challenges in this area are numerous and require a coordinated response across borders and among communities.
andre.deb@gmail.com
André DeBattista is a member of the Political Studies Association (UK) and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.