Charlie

It bears discussing because the whole Charlie Hebdo attack opens up a whole series of issues and questions concerning our support of free speech, the necessary steps to provide security for citizens of a democratic state, and just how we plan to balance the two.  I don’t propose to solve anything in this post just to raise some questions and maybe spark some conversation.

I deliberately said “we” up above as I think it’s understood that the attack on this small newspaper in France is really more than just an attack on a provocative publication in another country.  The attack was meant to do more than just murder a few reporters and editors.  The attack was an attempt to muzzle free expression and to dictate what could and could not be published.

In that aspect I think the attack largely failed.  The feedback and public outrage over the past couple of days has if anything strengthened the convictions of most of the public and the publishing world to continue freely publishing whatever they want in whatever manner that they want.

Some argue that Charlie Hebdo brought this upon themselves by not moderating or minding who they offended.  But honestly that’s part of the point of such publications.  They exist to elicit a reaction, to bring up a mirror, perhaps a warped mirror, to a situation and ask the public at large to look and discuss.

Charlie Hebdo is an extreme case of course but they act as outliers for mainstream publications that print less provocative material and who would be the next targets of terrorists if the Charlies of the world did not exist.  I don’t like everything that Charlie Hebdo publishes.  I’m not a regular reader but I’ve found some of the things that they have published to be vulgar and offensive.  But it is in guaranteeing their right to exist and to work that we safeguard the right of the rest of the news media to operate.

The attacks may have had some negative effects.  The security agencies in the West will look at this and pronounce that this perfectly illustrates why they need to have more latitude in how they deal with the general population and that personal liberties concerns have to become secondary at least “temporarily” while the terrorist threat is sorted out.

Unfortunately temporary measures seem to have a way of morphing into permanent measures with a disturbing regularity.  I can still barely remember accompanying a friend at an airport while she waited for her flight and seeing her to the very gate before she left.  All I had to do was pass through a very basic metal detector.  Nowadays I couldn’t even go through that metal detector without a valid airline ticket and picture ID.  It will certainly be interesting to see how the security apparatus tries to use this incident in the next year and how far the public will let them go.

An even less savory aspect of this whole mess is how it will affect the religious and ethnic minorities in the West.  People are tired of terrorism and war.  Incidents like this work well for hate mongers and bigots that want to restrict immigration and curve discussions between radically different groups of people.  These hate mongers will inevitably point to something like this and say “See, this is what happens when we open up our borders.”

But I think the counter argument to this is “see, this is what happens when we close our minds, when we stop empathizing with our fellow human beings in other parts of the world and treat them as different people to be feared.”  More communication, more discussion, more freedom is what is ultimately needed here.  Not less.

We cannot and should not let incidents like this close off our minds and make us live in fear of our fellow human beings.  The only way we can solve problems like terrorism is by opening ourselves up to others.