You cannot kill freedom of expression

The jihadist attack in broad daylight in the office of the well known Paris satire journal Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday, in which 12 people, including the editor, prominent cartoonists, and two policemen, were gunned down, was an outrage committed against freedom of expression and the spirit of democracy that will linger in memory as a massacre of journalists without parallel.

The terrorist assault on the weekly, which in particular lampooned religions, political figures, and the pillars of the establishment, with harshness, is said to be among the worst atrocities in France. Among Western democracies, France in particular takes pride in its strident — even reckless — secular tradition which rejects the show of religion in the public sphere. This particular journal was a showcase example of that tradition.

It had been firebombed by radical Islamists three years ago and angered them again by drawing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Lately, it had been making fun of the ISIS, the terrorist outfit running a virtual state in territories that are parts of Iraq and Syria and has become especially noted for its butchery of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The three terrorists who mounted the attack have apparently been identified by the French authorities. It remains to be seen if they have ISIS connections. France hosts a sizeable Muslim population, chiefly of North African origin, and a section of its youth is said to be radicalised.

Heightened notions of liberty, that can at times clash with the notion of group identity, and of free expression, have often put far-right sections of practitioners of religion-oriented politics at odds with the ideals and mores of democratic politics. It has been suggested that while the satirical journal had every right to publish what it deemed necessary or important since it wasn’t in any breach of French law, its refusal to exhibit a sense of judgment in its editorial sweep, and moderation, was arguable — especially given the consequences that may ensue.

Such arguments did not impress the editor, Stephane Charbonnier, who was killed in the horrible attack. He declined to be circumspect about taking on jihadist violence, or about lampooning any institution, including Christ or Christianity, the faith of the majority in France and western Europe and North America. This is undoubtedly an extremely brave stance that will impress practitioners of journalism everywhere, India not excluded since in this country the shadow of religious politics has begun to lengthen of late. Jihadists do not represent Muslim society, but its minuscule extremist fringe. This should be kept in view while articulating narratives, and policy.