France, struggling to regain a sense of normalcy after the Bastille Day atrocity in Nice, was stunned again by the murder of a priest in Normandy. It’s just the latest in a string of attacks over the course of the last several years, which have left the French government struggling to find new resources to use to investigate and stop terror. Meanwhile, the French press has debated how best to report the aftermath of attacks.
The night of the attack in Nice, French president François Hollande called upon his defense and interior ministers to mobilize 10,000 soldiers, in addition to police and gendarmes in order to provide additional security. Now, in a secondary effort to boost security on the ground, Hollande is recreating a force from France’s past—calling for the creation of a National Guard “for the protection of the French people.”
Hollande called upon men and women who wished to “engage in the service of the protection of French people” to consider service in the National Guard in addition to their studies or work. The French government hopes that the new personnel will relieve stress on police, military, and the gendarmerie, all of which have been stretched by preexisting investigations.
France’s first National Guard was created in 1791 as a nationalization of the Paris National Guard. A citizen militia, it remained in service until 1872. During this period, it was used both as a military reserve and for policing. Despite the historical precedent, Hollande wishes to model the new force on the U.S. National Guard’s citizen soldiery, with members serving up to one month per year. Where this new manpower will be directed remains to be seen. Security has already been heightened throughout France, but was unable to stop the murder of an elderly priest celebrating Mass in the Normandy town of St.-Etienne-du-Rouvray.
And while the government scrambles for an effective investigative response, a side debate has sprung up over the weight of words. Last week, 40 members of the French parliament wrote to the head of France’s media regulator, urging him to remind media outlets to be prudent in their use of images of terrorists and terror attacks. The members feared that the “glorification” of such attacks served as a “vector for terror,” encouraging future attackers.
Their warning was heard, albeit not universally heeded, by the French press, which argued over where the line between prudence and free speech lay.
One Paris-based publishing house cancelled the September 16 publication of a French translation of Der Islamische Faschismus (The Islamic Fascism), a book by German-Egyptian author Hamed Abdel-Samad.
Although the book had already been released in Germany, Piranha Edition, the French publisher, opted to cancel its publication in light of the recent terror attack. Abdel-Samad revealed the decision in a blog post, where he also criticized Piranha for tempering the book’s inflammatory title to “Is Islam a form of fascism?”
While he criticized Piranha for basing publication decisions on political fears, French papers and news networks were engaged in a debate of their own over the propriety of publishing images of terrorists and terror attacks.
French daily Le Monde announced that it would “no longer publish images taken from [Islamic State] propaganda.” Specifically responding to the Nice attack, the paper promised to “no longer publish photographs of the authors of the killings” in order to prevent “eventual posthumous glorification.
It was a decision shared by BFM-TV, France’s most-watched news channel. The network Europe1, one of the largest media outlets in France, announced that it would not air the full names of terrorists killed during attacks.
“I don’t want these names to become part of a pantheon of terrorists,” said Nicolas Escoulan, Europe1’s editorial director.
However, others in France criticized the networks for changes they viewed as a form of self-censorship. The newspaper Libération described Le Monde‘s decision as well-intentioned, but destined to lead to a bad result.
“Can one seriously believe that, deprived of a picture, terrorists will find themselves moderated, impeded, or dissuaded?” the paper asked in an editorial on Thursday. Citing the Islamic State’s “religious dogmatism,” “anti-modern hate,” and firm desire to establish an Islamic caliphate, the paper urged readers to be realistic: “A photograph published or held will do nothing to change this [terrorist] strategy.”
Rather, the best resistance in the face of terror was for “the mechanisms of democracy to continue to function normally,” at the same time that direct action was taken against terrorists organizations.
It’s a debate that largely exists on the periphery of the major issues affecting France. The struggle to effectively monitor a growing terrorist threat continues, regardless of the decision made by France’s newspapers, and nationalist politician Marion Maréchal-Le Pen has already asked if the “self-censorship” was adopted in “to hide the tie to immigration.”
For France, immigration, security, and information will doubtless dominate the political discussion in the months to come. Now, at least, the struggle will be to determine how best to employ what resources the country has to prevent further bloodshed.
