Thoughts on Charlie Hebdo: How did we end up here?

I read this article by Charlie Hebdo this morning. It has been condemned as hateful and racist on one side and celebrated for its anti-Islam stance on another side. It has also been read by Muslims who feel unable or forbidden to discuss the issues it raises.

The article does a good job of exploring one factor involved in enabling the Brussels terrorist attack. I think it is clear that there is a part of the Islamic communities that is reluctant to open itself up to criticism. This is unfortunately supported by some in the west, who often with the best of intentions in combating anti-Muslim bigotry, end up suppressing the voices of ex-Muslims, reform Muslims and other supporters of secularism.

I also liked the emphasis in each example that individually no one is doing anything wrong, until the act of terrorism right at the end. The problem is not with the individuals in the story, but with the collective result of their choices and values.

At the beginning, the article acknowledges many of the other factors potentially involved in enabling the attack:

For a week now, experts of all kinds have been trying to understand the reasons for the attacks in Brussels. An incompetent police force? Unbridled multiculturalism? Youth unemployment? Uninhibited Islamism? The causes are numerous beyond counting and everyone will naturally choose the one that suits best their own convictions. Law and Order fans will denounce the haplessness of the police. Xenophobes will blame immigration. Sociologists will rehash the evils of colonialism. Urban-planners will point to the evils of ghettoisation. Take your pick.

I particularly like here the noting that people will choose the explanations that fit their own biases. Unfortunately, Charlie Hebdo immediately exemplifies this point by dismissing most of these other potential causes to focus on the intellectual attack on secularism and the importance of free debate.

In reality, the attacks are merely the visible part of a very large iceberg indeed. They are the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing long in motion and on the widest possible scale.

I don’t object to Charlie Hebdo focusing their attention in the article on this particular aspect, but I think they were sloppy in implying that their focus is the most important.

The attack on secularism Charlie Hebdo highlights is an important one to be aware of, but we must also be careful not to swing too far the other way. Freedom of religion is important too, as part of secular society, and it would be very easy to extrapolate from Charlie Hebdo’s examples here to making laws that also restrict religious expression. The case of the baker is a good example here:

Take the local baker, who has just bought the nearby bakery and replaced the old, recently-retired guy, he makes good croissants. He’s likeable and always has a ready smile for all his customers. He’s completely integrated into the neighbourhood already. Neither his long beard nor the little prayer-bruise on his forehead (indicative of his great piety) bother his clientele. They are too busy lapping up his lunchtime sandwiches. Those he sells are fabulous, though from now on there’s no more ham nor bacon. Which is no big deal because there are plenty of other options on offer — tuna, chicken and all the trimmings. So, it would be silly to grumble or kick up a fuss in that much-loved boulangerie. We’ll get used to it easily enough. As Tariq Ramadan helpfully instructs us, we’ll adapt. And thus the baker’s role is done.

It would be a clear violation of the baker’s right to religious freedom to require him to serve ham or bacon in the food he cooks.

To sum up, I think the article raises some important points. I don’t think it is inherently hateful, racist or bigoted. But we must be careful not to overreact to the actions of individual Muslims.