In Paris, on January 7th 2015, two brothers, armed with assault rifles, forcefully entered the offices of Charlie Hebdo, killing eleven people and injuring eleven others. This sparked much concern and controversy, as Charlie Hebdo is a satirical weekly newspaper known to disrespect culture and mock religion. The brothers used the nature of the paper to justify their attacks and openly identified themselves as part of the terrorist group known as Al-Qaeda. Consequently, four days later, an estimated 2 million people gathered in Paris and 3.7 million gathered throughout France to demonstrate their national unity and their support of Charlie Hebdo. This resulted in the creation of the hashtag JeSuisCharlie and the awareness of billions of people who both approve and disapprove of the actions taken in Paris.
Could the attacks be justified? Many say they could, for according to certain interpretations of Islam it is forbidden to depict Muhammad, which Charlie Hebdo has and will likely continue to do. Their content has always been controversial and relatively “left-wing” so, there is no doubt it would receive backlash. Nevertheless, there is a line, which has unquestionably been crossed in this situation. To protest the content of the newspaper is one thing, but to threaten the lives of hard-working men and women is another. Who is to say that all those who work in the Charlie Hebdo offices are as racist, sexist and bigoted as the content they produce? Therefore, despite the nature of Charlie Hebdo, the victims of this tragedy did not deserve what happened to them, no person ever could. For this reason, so many people are using the JeSuisCharlie hashtag to show support, recognition and sympathy.
Great post Joy! I remember when the Charlie Hebdo shooting happened and how it exploded on social media. I agree with what you said about the victims of the tragedy not deserving what happened to them. I do not think they should have drawn the prophet in their newspaper but killing people because of it was a huge overreaction that was completely unnecessary. When are people going to learn that killing people solves nothing?? I love your blog and how relevant it is! Keep up the great work! :)
ReplyDeleteThank you so much Rebekah! There is honestly no excuse for murder. There is no doubt that Charlie Hebdo is a controversial newspaper and that it may offend many people throughout the world, but it must be understood that this paper is satirical and that it is not intended to be taken seriously. The attacks on Charlie Hebdo only added to the terrorist threat and the stereotypes surrounding Islam, thus increasing the sale of their newspaper. So you're right when you say killing people solves nothing, but only adds to the initial problem.
DeleteWhile I am against censorship, I definitely do believe that what Charlie Hedbo has done in the past and is still doing to this day is vile in nature. You said Charlie Hebdo satirizes religion, but I'd disagree and say they definitely have an affinity for mocking Islam, going as far to mock dead Syrian children. All I know is that if they get attacked again, they aren't getting much sympathy from me
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dante, they were warned many times before, it was made clear that if they did not stop something was bound to happen. I mean was proving a point that important? It was so important that they, went on and on, making fun of a religion . That insane extremist took innocent lives away. People were killed just to prove a point? What this looks like to me is ignorance and immaturity.
DeleteCharlie Hebdo is a satirical newspaper by definition, their mockery of Islam, Christianity and other major religions is the very reason for their success and their profitability. However, I do believe that a line had been crossed with the depiction of Muhammad and that with publishing something of that nature, one should expect backlash. The trouble is, the backlash resulted in the inexcusable murder of eleven hard working people and that is why the attacks received so much sympathy.
DeleteThe magazine editor was at fault.. I mean they ridiculed continuously the largest growing religion in the world (Islam). And I understand the gun men were radical, and it was a complete unproportionate response, but what i'm trying to say is that if after the threats, they would have stopped, they could of realized that they were offending others, this whole situation could of been avoided.
ReplyDeleteMy white culture is allowed to say what they want. We sould not be limited because as I recall there is something called freedom of speech, I agree that there should be limits and they should have definately not have gone as far s they did, but they should have not died.
DeleteFirst of all, it is quite ignorant of you to say that the editor is at fault. It was not they who forced their way into the offices with the intent to kill, they were simply doing their job. You mentioned that the attackers were radicals, implying that they are unpredictable. So, who is to say that they would not have attacked Charlie Hebdo anyway, even if they had no publication of Muhammad?
DeleteHunter, I agree with you that freedom of speech justifies the publication of Charlie Hebdo and that, as Dante stated, I am against censorship. However, to put it simply, if someone flicks you and your response is to punch them, the person who is punched cannot be held accountable for the other person's reaction. Similarly, Charlie Hebdo cannot be held responsible for the behaviour of radicals.
Delete