Are we Charlie?

by Admin · January 21, 2015

BY ACTING EDITOR FR CHRIS CHATTERIS SJ

To identify oneself directly with the victims of some terrible event or monstrous injustice has become almost fashionable, ever since John Kennedy�s visit to West Berlin in 1963 when, in solidarity with the people who were divided by the Iron Curtain, he famously said: �Ich bin ein Berliner.� And when the 9/11 attacks took place in 2001, people around the world proclaimed: �We are all Americans now.�

People hold a placard that reads “I am Muslim, I am Jewish, I am Catholic, I am Charlie” during a Jan. 8 vigil in Paris, following the mass shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical newspaper in Paris. Pope Francis condemned the killings of a t least 12 people at the offices of the publication Jan. 7 and denounced all “physical and moral” obstacles to the peaceful coexistence of nations, religions and cultures. (CNS photo/Jacky Naegelen, Reuters)

Millions of people in France and worldwide have recently been proclaiming �I am Charlie� in reaction to the recent murderous terrorist attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

Personal identification is an understandable first response of human sympathy. Then, as the emotions of the event settle and reflection begins, the responses become more nuanced. How did this happen? Was it inevitable? What should be done?

Memories of earlier events eliciting such solidarity remind us that they can be used by politicians for dubious ends. 9/11 was used by Messrs Bush and Blair to wage war in Iraq, and look at Iraq today. How will politicians use, as undoubtedly some will, the Charlie Hebdo outrage? When that happens, many people who proclaimed �I am Charlie� may feel used.

So, are Catholics Charlie? There is no question about our condemnation of the terrorist murders. Although in the past the Church has used force, including the deadly force of torture and execution, against those who attacked it verbally, we have come to realise that such a response was and always is unworthy of the one we follow. The Inquisition was a gross betrayal of the Jesus who commanded us to love our enemies and who forgave those who crucified him.

The Slovenian philosopher Slavov �i�ek has made the interesting point that religious fanatics who feel they must kill those who mock their faith betray a lack of confidence in that faith. A good definition of fanaticism is �overcompensation for doubt�. By contrast, when Charlie Hebdo published a horribly obscene cartoon of the Blessed Trinity, the cartoonists and editors knew that Christians would find it offensive but no Christian fanatics would kill them. They could also count on a similarly restrained reaction from Jews.

One of Charlie Hebdo�s arguments in their defence is that they do not single out any religion or group in particular; everyone is fair game. But parcelling offensiveness out equally does not lessen its intrinsic hurtfulness. Nor does it address the vital question of the level of respect and civility required in a democratic society which is both pluralistic and multi-religious.

Certainly, freedom of speech is a fundamental right in a democratic society, but that it is unlimited is a myth. Here in South Africa one cannot use the k-word, and rightly so, because it was used in the past to dehumanise people and can still do so. In Germany one may not (by law) deny the historical truth of the Holocaust, because to do so is to dehumanise Jews all over again. An attack on a revered historical figure can be an attack on those who revere that figure. I doubt if South Africans would tolerate obscene cartoons of Nelson Mandela.

For history teaches that verbal or written violence leads to violence, even genocide. This was horribly demonstrated in Rwanda by the extremists� use of the term �cockroaches� of the Tutsis, repeated on their propaganda radio station. Having reduced human beings to the level of insects, they persuaded very ordinary people to treat them like insects.

The question, therefore, is not whether we should have freedom of expression or not. The real question is always: how much freedom?

If anyone can say anything about anybody, then it can become impossible to agree to disagree respectfully. The necessary respect and tolerance required for democratic dialogue can disappear in a welter of violent language. If words degenerate into real violence, a dictator often steps in and that�s the end of all our freedoms.

If being Charlie means standing for an extreme, aggressively offensive freedom of expression, then can a serious Catholic, or indeed a serious democrat, be Charlie?