Islam and tensions with the freedom of expression in France
By: Lone Candle
Tags: Islam, Freedom of Expression, Terrorism, France, Cartoons

Over the last few decades, France has experienced a string of terrorist attacks. Examples include: in 2011, the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris were firebombed, but no one was injured; in 2012, an al-Qaeda-linked gunman killed three Jewish schoolchildren, a rabbi, and three paratroopers; in 2015, firearm attacks on Charlie Hebdo offices and a kosher grocery store killed 17 people; also in 2015, terrorists attacked the Bataclan concert hall, a sports stadium, and other locations in Paris, killing 130 people; in 2016, a man drove through people on Bastille Day, killing 86; also in 2016, a priest was murdered; In 2017, a man shouting “Allahu akbar” attacked French soldiers with a machete in Paris, and a different man attacked police and soldiers at a Paris airport saying he wanted to kill and die for Allah, separately, a police officer was shot and killed, and in yet another incident, a man with a hammer attacked police officers after declaring his allegiance to the Islamic State; In 2018, a man opened fire on police and took hostages; and in 2020, two people were stabbed outside Charlie Hebdo headquarters. Some of these acts were committed by homegrown Islamist terrorists, others, by immigrants. Additionally, many French citizens went to Syria to join ISIS.

On October second, 2020, France’s leader President Macron gave a speech that enraged many Muslims throughout the world. Then, on October 16th, the teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded. In a lesson about freedom of expression, he showed his students the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Word got out, and outrage spread, including a growing social media campaign to get Paty fired or disciplined. The murderer took it upon himself to kill the teacher. He didn’t act alone. Not only was he inspired by the social media campaign, but ten people have been charged with assisting him.

Allegedly…an accomplice drove the murderer to Paty’s school. Then, two students accepted payment to identify Paty and even waited with him for two hours until they saw Paty leaving, even though the murderer told the students that he intended to hit and humiliate Paty.

Considering people were murdered over this cartoon, it’s not crazy for a teacher to discuss it in class. Free speech is a fundamental value. And, because we cannot allow violence to defeat fundamental rights, it’s also not crazy to show that such rights must win out by showing the offensive cartoons in class. It wasn’t necessary, and I don’t have a problem with parents trying to get the school to end the practice, but the extreme outrage this produced is crazy…and it facilitated murder.

At Paty’s funeral, Macron gave another speech that also enraged many in the Muslim world.

Across multiple countries, people: angrily protested while stomping on images of the French president; boycotted French goods while stores removed French products from their shelves; and leaders of majority Islamic countries spoke out against Macron.

Now, of course, the true outrage is that violence is repeatedly committed in the name of Islam. But what’s also quite ridiculous is all this rage and focus by some Muslims on the words of the French president when he’s responding to his citizens being murdered. Why is all this energy not focused in dissuading fellow Muslims from radicalism and terror, rather than trying to damage France and its citizens’ businesses because they don’t like some things Macron said. Taking actions to actually hurt someone, in this case reputationally and economically, in response to words is in the same direction of action as murdering people because of cartoons. These boycotters and leaders are despicable and do more to reveal issues in the Islamic world than the evils of France.

Let’s take a moment to review what Macron said. I’m all for criticizing leaders, even in moments of national crises that deal with loss of life. It’s completely fair to publicly claim Macron chose his words poorly or to argue against his policies. But we should do so fairly and our anger should be in proportion to the slight committed, if there is a slight.

Misrepresentations and Misunderstandings

Macron’s speeches have been treated extremely unfairly and taken woefully out of context. There really is a propaganda machine in the Islamic world that has not been able to deliver the truth on this issue. From state run media, to the comments of political and religious leaders, to social media; falsehoods and misrepresentations of Macron’s speech and of the nature of the Muhammad cartoons are rampant. Unfortunately, sometimes progressive media in the western world make the same mistakes.

The whole dispute often gets portrayed as France VS Islam. That’s nonsense and dangerous. By portraying the situation so, it implies that this is a large conflict between two forces and great action is justified to further the cause of one’s side.

In reality, some people in France use their freedom of speech to draw things offensive to Muslims, and some Muslims commit terrorist acts in the name of their religion. Islam in general is not in war with France. The entirety of the Islamic nation isn’t contributing resources to fight the French enemy. Likewise, France isn’t advocating disrespect toward Islam. Their leader isn’t either. They do greatly value free speech, and this means people can draw offensive cartoons. France does want to protect its culture and prevent terrorism, but this shouldn’t be fairly described as an attack on Islam.

Listening to many Islamic protestors, media, and leaders…you’d think the president of France himself commissioned or supported disrespectful drawings of Muhammad. You’d think Macron gave a speech portraying Islam as an evil religion. Both of these are false. It’s maddening to see people angrily protesting and boycotting while stomping repeatedly on pictures of Macron based on false beliefs of what actually happened.

And these false beliefs aren’t limited to the nature of speeches and cartoons, but a misunderstanding of western free speech itself. The protest rank and file and protest leaders commonly say that France should not allow such cartoons. They think insults toward religions should be banned. This reveals a major cultural difference that facilitates misunderstanding. They don’t get that the leader of a country can be aware of people disrespecting him or a religion and say: I don’t have the authority to stop this. The people have the right to do such things, even if I disagree with them. They also think religion should trump freedom of speech. This is a major difference in cultural views that adds to tensions when such incidents occur.

Macron’s Paty Speech

There is much outrage and complaint about Macron not disavowing the cartoons of Muhammad. For example, while giving a speech at the funeral of the beheaded teacher Samuel Paty, Macron said, “that’s precisely why Samuel Paty was killed. Because he embodied the Republic which comes alive every day in classrooms, the freedom that is conveyed and perpetuated in schools.

“Samuel Paty was killed because Islamists want our future and because they know that with quiet heroes like him, they will never have it. They divide the faithful and the unbelievers.

“Samuel Paty only knew citizens, whereas they thrive on ignorance. He believed in knowledge. They cultivate hatred of the other. He always wanted to give them a human face, discover the richness of otherness.

“Samuel Paty was the victim of a fatal conspiracy of folly, lies, conflation, hatred of the other, hatred of what we are deep down, existentially.

“On Friday, Samuel Paty became the face of the Republic, of our determination to disrupt terrorists, to curtail Islamists, to live as a community of free citizens in our country; he became the face of our determination to understand, to learn, to continue to teach, to be free, because we will continue to do so, sir.

“We will defend the freedom that you taught so well, and we will strongly proclaim the concept of laïcité [secularism]. We will not disavow the cartoons, the drawings, even if others recoil. We will provide all the opportunities that the Republic owes all its young people, without any discrimination.

“We will continue, sir. France’s schoolteachers primary and secondary school teachers will teach history — both its glories and its vicissitudes. We will help our students discover literature, music, all the works of the mind and soul. With all our strength, we will enjoy debate, reasonable arguments, friendly persuasion. We will love science and its controversies. Like you, we will cultivate tolerance. Like you, we will relentlessly seek to understand, and to gain an even better understanding of the things they’d like to take away from us. We will learn humor, distance. We will remember that our freedoms will endure only if we end hatred and violence, only if we respect others.

“We will continue, sir. And throughout their lives, the hundreds of young people you educated will practice the critical thinking they learned from you.”

Macron isn’t advocating the drawing, or spreading, of Muhammad cartoons. He’s simply saying he won’t condemn them. Why? Because in a free society people are allowed to say stupid shit. They are allowed to do offensive things. It is not the role of a president to manage insults, even insults to religion. Every step toward managing freedom of expression leads toward another step. If we can ban people from drawing Muhammad, then why not this or that?

What one person holds sacred, another does not. In a free society this means someone making a political point or an offensive joke will sometimes affront another. It is not the leader of the country’s job to disavow offensive things its citizens do.

But you know what his job is to do? The leader of a free country must defend the basic rights of his citizens. The freedom of expression must not be abridged. This means when terrorists murder a citizen for exercising his right, that leader must defend that right at all costs. This leader must say, the citizens of my free country can say, or draw, or distribute that expression no matter how offensive it is. This is not to say one should do that. Or that the leader approves of it, but in the face of violent acts to circumscribe a basic right, the leader cannot in anyway diminish that right with his words. So, at the funeral of a man killed for showing a cartoon, Macron is right to say that he, and the nation of France, will not disavow cartoons, even though they cause many to recoil.

Of course, do protestors, boycotters, many in the Islamic media, and many Islamic religious and political leaders understand this? Do they see this context? Do they explain that this is the leader of a country repeatedly under violent attack in response to a fundamental right? No. They just complain or express outrage. The true outrage is violence over cartoons, and expressing outrage over a simple lack of disavowing shows the problem that facilitates violence over such things.

Islam, Islamism, Terror, Crisis

Let’s look at an often-cited Macron quote that people use to incite anger toward the president. “Islam is a religion that is currently experiencing a crisis all over the world.”…“Islam is a religion that is currently experiencing a crisis all over the world.”

Out of context, this is not a good thing to say. Why? Because Islam is a religion containing fifty majority Muslim countries and 1.8 billion people. Most of these people aren’t in crisis because of their religion. They go about their lives like everyone else. Such a statement sounds like Macron is portraying all Muslims as problematic, or Islam itself. It is too broad and vague. What does he mean? Is he talking about a particular problem Islam has? If only he gave an entire speech on the topic that would explain.

Oh wait…he did.

Before the “crisis” line Macron said, “let’s not fall into the trap of conflating issues, set by polemicists and extremists, which consists in denouncing all Muslims. That trap is what the enemies of the Republic set us; it consists in making all citizens of the Muslim faith objective allies because they are supposedly the victims of a well-organized system. Too simplistic.”

And he says, “What we must tackle is Islamist separatism. A conscious, theorized, political-religious project is materializing through repeated deviations from the Republic’s values, which is often reflected by the formation of a counter-society as shown by children being taken out of school, the development of separate community sporting and cultural activities serving as a pretext for teaching principles which aren’t in accordance with the Republic’s laws. It’s indoctrination and, through this, the negation of our principles, gender equality and human dignity.

“The problem is this ideology, which claims that its own laws are superior to the Republic’s. And as I’ve often said, I’m not asking any of our citizens to believe or not believe, or believe a little or moderately — that’s none of the Republic’s business. I’m asking every citizen, of all religions and none, to abide wholeheartedly by all the Republic’s laws. And in this radical Islamism — since this is at the heart of the matter let’s talk about it and name it — a proclaimed, publicized desire, a systematic way of organizing things to contravene the Republic’s laws and create a parallel order, establish other values, develop another way of organizing society which is initially separatist, but whose ultimate goal is to take it over completely. And this is gradually resulting in the rejection of the freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and the right to blaspheme, and in us becoming insidiously radicalized. Nearly 170 people, to give just one example, are being monitored here, in Yvelines, for violent radicalization. Sometimes this goes as far as going and waging jihad. We know that 70 young people in this department left for Syria, and it’s often children of the Republic who stray down this path, even going as far as actually taking action and trying to cause bloodshed or sometimes worse. It’s also this path whose manifestations we saw again last Friday”

Macron explicitly states he’s not talking about all Islam. He says so loud and clear. He also warns against doing such a thing. Do such statements affect the ears of angry protestors, leaders, and media figures? No. They probably don’t even reach such ears.

Macron is talking about radicals, people who want to subvert French law, and terrorists. He’s talking about Islamists. I don’t know how well the word Islamist has penetrated the general public, but this is not a new word. It is regularly used by academics, journalists, and leaders. It is a way to criticize certain Muslims without implying that all Muslims are this way. It refers to those who believe Islam should take over political life, those who favor the suppression of basic freedoms, and those who justify violence in the name of Islam.

Macron goes on to emphasize his concern is radical Islam, saying, “we have to realize that a radical Islamism is leading to a repudiation of the Republic’s laws, to the trivialization of violence and to some of our citizens, our children, choosing the worst or believing the worst has become natural, and so to the creation of conditions for political abuses but also violent abuses, those of Islamist terrorism. Our challenge today is to fight against this abuse which some perpetrate in the name of religion, by ensuring that those who want to believe in Islam are not targeted and are citizens of our Republic in the full sense. We’ve basically been burdened with this situation for years.

“If you want to tell things as they are and believe that millions of our citizens live in the Republic as full citizens and believe in Islam, you’re told ‘you’re naive, you’re covering up for them, you aren’t facing up to the problem.’ If we want to address the abuses I’m talking about, including in their most radical forms, we fall into the trap of stigmatizing a whole religion.”

Again, Macron is explicitly saying he’s not attacking all Islam and even warning his people to not do such a thing.

It is after repeatedly saying he is not attacking all Islam, but Islamists radicals, and warning his people against treating all Muslims as enemies. It is after referring to Islamists terrorist attacks where French citizens were murdered; It is in the context of speaking at the time of the trial for those responsible for the Charlie Hebdo shooting; where he says, “Islam is a religion that is currently experiencing a crisis all over the world. We’re not just seeing it in our country, it’s a deep crisis linked to tensions between forms of fundamentalism, specifically religious and political projects which, as we’re seeing in every region of the world, are leading to a very strong hardening, including in countries where Islam is the majority religion.”

And after using Tunisia as an example, he says, “So everywhere there’s a crisis of Islam, which is being infected by these radical manifestations, these radical impulses and the desire for a reinvented jihad, which means the destruction of the Other. The project for a territorial caliphate which we fought against in the Levant, which we’re fighting in the Sahel, and everywhere the most radical, more or less insidious forms of it. This crisis affects us by definition too.”

So, Macron didn’t say there is “a crisis of Islam” period. He didn’t then elaborate on how Islam is a bad religion in general. He very clearly elaborated on how the crisis he’s referring to involves radical jihad and political manifestations. He’s talking about evil attempts at political Islam like ISIS, and about Islamist terrorists.

And he’s right! On these issues, Islam has been in crisis for decades! People have been inspired by Islam to kill other people. This happens all over the Islamic world. If a religion is repeatedly, over a variety of times and places, being cited as the reason for killing innocent people, then that religion is having a fucking crisis. If a religion is used to suppress freedom of speech and belief, then that’s a crisis. If protestors angered at a perceived slight against their religion are more incensed by a cartoon or the misrepresented words of a foreign president than the repeated murder of civilians in the name of their religion…that’s a fucking crisis. Why aren’t there protests all over the world against killing people in France in the name of Islam? It appears that they care more about a cartoon than innocent lives, than murders. That’s a crisis.

Macron doesn’t simply blame radical ideology. He goes on to acknowledge the faults in French society and that the poor conditions of French Muslims contribute to the problem and the country should do more to help them. He acknowledges France’s colonial history and the role it plays in today’s terrorism and separatism.

Do these apparently genuine acknowledgements get much play in the Muslim world? No.

Now, the speech proposes ambitious policies that would never be acceptable in the United States. Macron wants to reform Islam in France. He wants to advocate an enlightened Islam by supporting French Islamic scholars and leaders. He wants: to end French Muslims importing leaders from overseas, to more heavily crackdown on French Islamic institutions that either don’t conform to French laws or facilitate terrorism, and to better educate his people about Islam.

He says he doesn’t want to tell people what to believe, but wants Muslims to conform to French laws. These are pretty strong steps, and advocating a particular “nice” interpretation of Islam, is, to an extent, telling people what to believe. France already bans religious garb in certain public settings. The Muslim Hijab is banned. Their assimilation attempts require far more uniformity compared to the United States, which accepts and allows more cultural diversity. The government advocating the ethos of “The Republic” in every facet of society goes way too far for American sensibilities, and the crackdown on separatist practices could go as far as banning homeschooling for anything but health reasons and stopping swimming pools from having gender specific times for the sake of Muslim preferences.

These policies don’t appeal to me, but I also come from an American and Anglo-Saxon perspective where the state plays a different role in society. In France, you are suppose to just be French, rather than in the United States where it’s common to be an Islamic-American, Egyptian-American, black-American, or/and Mexican-American.

These policies can be fairly criticized and thoughtfully discussed. But that’s not what you see in the rage around the Muslim world. You see people stomping on images of a foreign leader while yelling about cartoons and speeches. You see people spreading information about a teacher who showed a cartoon, and someone else taking that information and, in the name of Islam, beheading that teacher.

Getting angry about a cartoon while ignoring or downplaying repeated murders in the name of one’s religion is part of the problem. The focus on outrage at minor slights and the deemphasizing of murder, facilitates more murder. If I see my in-group all over the world taking to the streets and boycotting goods over a great insult to my religion, I am that much more likely to think I should murder those creating the insults. This social environment produces terrorism.

That such anger, and sometimes violence, is motivated by perceived slights to Islam, and by certain interpretations of Islam, and is tacitly supported or only weakly pushed back against by the greater Muslim community, is why Islam is in crisis.

Now…despite this reality. I do need to step back a bit here. The problems of Islamist terrorism and right-suppressing Islamist governments and movements…are problems only Muslims can solve. Muslims must convince other Muslims to not turn to terror. We need Muslims to cooperate with governments or foreign forces to fight against, or target, terrorists. Western governments need Muslim citizens familiar with the culture and language of terrorist breeding grounds to aid in preventing terrorism. Western countries must work with Muslim majority countries on limiting Islamism.

Most Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism and little to do with political Islam. As Macron repeatedly pointed out, we can’t stigmatize all Muslims, that is a trap that Islamists will use to gain recruits and sympathy. However, we also have to speak the truth. That’s difficult, or really impossible, to do perfectly. Describing honestly the crisis of Islam, even in context and explaining what one means, will produce unbased outrage. Still, we only make it worse by going further in our language. We must remember that Muslims are our greatest allies in the fight against Islamists. We can’t blame people who just go to work and love their families who happen to believe in Islam. But, we should be honest about the crisis the whole world has faced for decades involving Islamic identity and certain Islamic religious interpretations that facilitate: terrorism and a lack of value for basic rights.

I’m Lone Candle. Like me. Comment me. Love me.