This Saturday, January 7, was the eighth anniversary of the attack on Charlie Hebdo, French satirical weekly. There, 12 people died, ten inside the newsroom and two policemen in the street, one of them a Muslim. Two days later, members of the same terrorist group attacked “Hypercacher”, a kosher food market. Four customers and one of the attackers died there, this one when confronted by the police.
The attack, which was neither the first nor the last, occurred in retaliation for the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad ten years earlier, considered offensive to the faith. Definitely, an alleged punishment for the commission of a crime: blasphemy. “Justice” by one’s own hand for a crime that is only such in a theocracy, precisely. The French, and not only them, took to the streets in defense of freedom of expression with posters that read “I am Charlie”.
There being no connection between the weekly Charlie Hebdo and the Hypercacher market, this second attack could only be explained in terms of the plainest anti-Semitism. However, even his own Pope Francisco it was placed in a sinuous place. “You cannot make fun of the faith of others”; “In freedom of expression, there are limits,” she stated; finishing off with “you can’t react violently, but if someone says a bad word against my mother, a punch could well be expected.”
Bergoglio left without explaining what would have been the mockery or provocation of customers in a kosher market. None, but the absurd is useful to understand that terrorism does not need real reasons to kill, that is why it is terrorism. The religious, political and ideological fundamentalism that sustains it is effective in fabricating justification. All fundamentalisms are.
The memory of that January 2015 and its ambiguities once again confronts us with the precariousness of life, of course, and with the contingent nature of our rights. This forces us to reflect on the meaning of our freedoms under attack, and not only by jihadist terrorism. For this reason, it forces us to act to strengthen the only political order designed to protect these liberties: constitutional democracy.
To honor the memory of the victims in a sort of reopening, Charlie Hebdo announced a special edition in support of Iranian women and menand “beat the mullahs” by publishing 35 illustrations from an international competition. The magazine suggested that cartoons of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei should show him “funny and evil”, ridiculing him and thus consigning him to the “waste basket of history”.
Thus they postulate the satirical caricature as “the supreme leader of freedom.” They emphasize that those who refuse to submit to the religious dictates of a despotic order, even living in a republic like the French one, nevertheless continue to risk their lives with their texts and illustrations. Precisely, there are no limits to freedom of expression. In a constitutional state, these limits are set by law. As long as the expressions in question do not incite violence, they are generally legal, that is, they are free.
It is more than a coincidence that the first cartoon competition was started by the Iranian regime itself in 1993. The purpose then was to draw Salman Rushdie to expose the alleged conspiracy behind his blasphemous novel, satanic verses. The winner received 160 gold coins.
But it wasn’t just cartoon. This was accompanied by a fatwa—decree— by which Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the assassination of the writer and offered a reward of 3 million dollars, later increased to 3.5. Since then Rushdie has spent a lot of time in hiding and under police protection. After more than two decades of threats, Rushdie was stabbed in the face, neck and abdomen on July 12. He survived the attack, but lost vision in one eye and the use of one hand.
Never more timely then, Charlie Hebdo He launched this competition as a permanent challenge, as a reminder of his colleagues and their sacrifice. He will not award any prize, there will be no first, second or third place. Nor will they grant a material reward, since, according to their own stipulations, the true prize is priceless: the courage to oppose religious despotism and the exercise of freedom.
In other words, the right to blasphemy, which is nothing more than the right to dissent, to heterodoxy, to freedom of expression, to question, to spread ideas, to debate, to creativity, to doubt and to knowledge derived from reason and not from any dogma. For this reason we repeat, once again: “I am Charlie”.
Note: the illustration is taken from Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon competition.
Keep reading: