On Charlie Hebdo Analysis

In “On Charlie Hebdo”, Richard Seymour discusses the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s newspaper headquarter and how people should have reacted. Two men entered the headquarters with machine guns and killed 12 of the workers. There is no justification for this action and freedom of speech must be defended. The media quickly claimed the attack to have come from an Islamic group in relation to an Islamic state. In addition, the president quickly claimed the attack as a terrorist attack. This term justifies the repressive and securitarian response to target Muslims. In France the magazine Charlie Hebdo became the symbol of “Western values” because it held freedom of speech. Seymur brings up the difference between being solidarity with journalist and solidarity with a racist publication. In addition, with this rise against Islam it establishes an us vs. them. Seymour ends the article by restating how the newspaper headquarters should have not been raided, however we still shouldn’t stand in line with the discrimination toward Muslims, or defend the
racialized “secularism” and we shouldn’t unite with a racist institute (Charlie Hebdo). I research Charlie Hebdo after reading the article. The magazine viewed them politically as left wing, which are people who oppose social hierarchy and social inequality. Who believes there are unjustified inequalities that should be removed from society and advocate for social justice. However, they publish cartoons that’s are very offensive and discriminative toward Muslims, Christians, and Jews. The magazine advocates for secularism, which is the separation of church and state. However, that is not necessarily possible and this can be seen in the Charlie Hebdo attack. The French government called this attack a terrorist attack and the media tried to link it to Islamic extremist. Thereby creating an us vs. them mentality. It creates a division between the people its either you are French (us) or a terrorist (them). Making it impossible to be a French person who is Muslim. In addition, it pushed for assimilation thus removing any cultural aspects from people who are from Islamic countries. This brings support to discriminate toward Muslims in Europe, thereby creating an unjustified inequality. I agree, with Seymour when he says this attack was unjustified that no one deserves to be shot at with a machine gun. However, the Charlie Hebdo magazine was not innocent in the matter they weren’t doing anything wrong and out of no where were they targeted, they did provoke the attack.
When people say Je suis Charlie “I am Charlie” they are in lining themselves with a racist publication. It is true freedom of speech should not be suppressed. However, Charlie Hebdo magazine was preaching discrimination and targeted people of different faiths. The magazine got international coverage from some in support and some in attacking the magazine for its work. European countries have had an increase in discrimination toward Muslims throughout the year. They have passed laws that have suppressed Muslims. Some nations have banned females from wearing the hijab. In multiple videos after Brexit, one coming to mind is an old women sitting on a bus yelling at a Muslim women how she should leave the country. Another example is my mother’s friend lives in the UK and in her job they told her she wasn’t allowed to wear her hijab anymore. In addition, with the Syrian refugee there is a large migration of Muslims coming to Europe and they face discrimination from European countries. The are not viewed as humans and are targeted by European people. In Wendy Hesford piece it discusses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is based on national recognition thereby not recognizing refugee rights. Since refugee does not have national recognition they are not protected by the declaration of Human rights and violence is justified against them. Charlie Hebdo adds fire to the flame of the rise of discrimination toward Muslims. By lining yourself with this magazine you are lining yourself with justifying discrimination toward Muslims. Another work that comes to mind is the reading above Two live Crew. The author wrote how she was conflicted with how she should either support the group because they were being targeted based off their race, however their lyrics was talking about raping black women, which is beyond morally wrong. The other person who comes to mind is the piece of that director who tried to make a film about how white men raped black women during slaver, however the director was accused of rape so you don’t know whether to support the production for the film or not. The same thing is occurring with the Charlie Hebdo attack, yes freedom of speech should not be suppressed, however they were advocating hate.
My social media piece is a Hebdo cartoon in, which is a Syrian refugee child Alan Kurdi who is laying next to a McDonald with a caption “So close to his goal”.
Alan Kurid was a three year old refugee who died in the Mediterranean Sea. His family was trying to escape the crisis in Syria by fleeing to Europe. I don’t think its ever okay to make a caricature of a dead child in a satire way. When I saw this image it filled me with anger. There are things that a person can joke about, but not a dead three year old. All of Charlie Hebdo cartoon upset me because its bluntly racist, however this one I believe is the worst one out of all of them because its trying to make a joke out of a dead three year old. After seeing the caricature I look up the actual picture of the child and he’s so young and his parents don’t deserve to see this image produced by Charlie Hebdo. The cartoon brings into account race and social class, but not
sexuality.