Charlie

from : Le Monde, 19.09.2012.
Doxa-translation.

Integrism: should one allow oil on the fire ?

Caricature is a delicate art. As is provocation. And a laugh can have

explosive consequences. Charlie Hebdo well knows this; it is indeed

its reason for being. The satirical weekly brought additional proof  this

week by publishing some ten drawings of the prophet Mahomed and of

integrist followers.

It will be recalled that, in 2006, Charlie Hebdo had reproduced caricatures,

from a Danish newspaper, which had provoqued a brushfire of anger in

the muslim world. Summoned to appear in court, the weekly had won that

trial. In 2011, its offices burned down after the publication of an issue called 

«Charia Hebdo», on the spread of islamism in Libya and Tunisia.

The same causes leading to the same effects, its latest output thus places

Charlie Hebdo at the center of a new debate, all the more lively since, for a 

week now, very violent reactions to the film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ has lead to 

dozens of deaths worldwide.

In this highly flammable context, and while the social media are filled with

calls to demonstrate in France, next week-end, against the film, the government

has immediately reacted. While reminding us that «the right of speech constitutes

one of the fondamental principles of our Republic», the prime minister, Jean-Marc 

Ayrault, has expressed his «non-approval of all excess», and has appealed to 

«the sense of responsibility of one and all». For their part, the Conseil français du culte

musulman has asked muslims to «not give in to provocation», and has condemned

«with the greatest vehemence, this new act of islamophobia».

Let us recall here a few principles. We live in a secular democracy where the

freedom to think and express oneself - within legal limits - is a fundamental parameter,

indeed an existential norm. This principle cannot be made subject to a higher one,

in this case religious. It is true in France, in Europe, in the United States which are

not because of this, the least religious places on earth.

Religions are respectable systems of thought and belief, which can be freely

analysed, debated, even submitted to ridicule. This has been evident since Voltaire.

Whatever one might think of the editorial choices of Charlie Hebdo, of the esthetic level

of its drawings, of the delicateness or lack of in its style, the only conceivable limit on its l

liberty would be that which courts might consider justified.

The caricatures under discussion show bad taste, in fact are awful. Their publication

is timed knowingly to put oil on the fire, wich might bring one to question the sense

of responsibility of the writers and publishers involved. But one cannot equate Charlie

Hebdo with those who would be its inquisitors. From the one side on wants to amuse

and sell, from the other one is pronouncing anathema.