You tell me who is most in need of adjustment: a satirist or his murderer.
A few public individuals have opined that the slain staff of Charlie Hebdo, in particular its editor Stephane Charbonnier, played a preventable part in their tragedy. “It is too bad that [Charbonnier] didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death,” Catholic League president Bill Donohue wrote Wednesday. “Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive.” That statement requires no framing from me.
“France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo,” the Financial Times’ Tony Barber said, as if Voltaire was a man of caution and restraint. Barber continued: “… some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.”
Stupid is the rationalization, however careful, however qualified, of the execution of people who draw vulgar cartoons.
Yes, Donohue and Barber both condemned the shootings. In the former’s case, it was “unequivocally.” But Donohue in fact neutralized his denunciation by equivocating the stomach that society has for satire and the one it has for mass slaughter. The juxtaposition of two of his statements is frightening: “[W]hat happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.” How can we possibly compare tolerance for a massacre to tolerance for a magazine?
Anyone may argue, reasonably, that Charlie Hebdo’s ridicule of Islam was excessive. No one may do so reasonably in the context of explaining an act of terrorism. Here is why: The burden was not on Stephane Charbonnier to put down his pen. It was on his killers to put down their guns. Anyone who fails to comprehend this has a malformed view of what is humanly right and wrong. And anyone who disagrees with it is dangerous.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali posed this challenge in her column Wednesday:
“The West must insist that Muslims, particularly members of the Muslim diaspora, answer this question: What is more offensive to a believer — the murder, torture, enslavement and acts of war and terrorism being committed today in the name of Muhammad, or the production of drawings and films and books designed to mock the extremists and their vision of what Muhammad represents?”
I extend her question to Mr. Donohue and Mr. Barber, as well as to all people, regardless of faith, for their consideration; and particularly to cultural and political leaders of prominence. What is more offensive to humanity itself? Who gets the scrutiny in acts like the Paris shootings: the practitioners of legal, free expression or the butchers who took their lives? Because to those who truly value freedom, the answer cannot be “both.”
