There is something in the “Je Suis Charlie” movement that provokes my admiration more than any popular movement I have ever witnessed. The largest public demonstration since the end of WWII takes to the streets of Paris to identify with a newspaper hardly any of the marchers will have ever cared to read, and many of whom probably found much of its material to be in very bad taste; all of this was for the sake of that old French Republican ideal of liberté or, more precisely here, liberté d’expression.
These marches were not, as so many mainstream news organizations have labeled them, protests against terrorism and violent religious extremism. In the first place, who would actually feel the need to march in the street for so obvious a goal as “anti-terrorism”? But if this was, in fact, what over a million Parisians were marching about, then their power slogan of “ Je suis Charlie” would seem to make no sense. I am against terrorism therefore I am the newspaper the terrorists attacked? That does not follow.
But, “I am a member of a society that stands for freedom of speech, and therefore, when even the most heinous of public commentators is attacked for what he or she said or wrote, within the confines of the law, it is just as much an attack on me.” That does follow, and is a noble sentiment, of which I fear many civilizations, including our own, are largely incapable.
The grand French tradition of the philosophes is, to some extent, alive and well. In probably the only laudable thing one of France’s political leaders has said or done since the attacks, President Hollande put it thus: “Freedom of expression is the Republic.”
In this sense the French seem to understand the true meaning of patriotism and nationalism rather more than we do. In times of crisis, we Americans tend to rally behind our political leaders in the name of American strength, American dominance, and America’s ability to exact revenge. But the men and women marching in Paris seem less interested in the people who lead their state, whose popularity is at an all time low, and which I don’t think will recover much even in the wake of these events, than in the political ideal that is the French Republic: Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité – it is still plastered on government buildings all over France.
But if the French government really does understand what all this patriotism and solidarity is about, they aren’t showing it. In an extraordinary act, or rather non-act, that renders nearly all of M. Hollande’s efforts at political unity almost farcical, the president neglected to invite Marine Le Pen, the leader of the Right Wing anti-EU Front National party, who is actually given the highest vote share in national polls for the next presidential election, to play a part in his unity march. Nicolas Sarkozy, the former center-right president, was standing right behind him.
I suppose we must believe that M. Hollande was marching for the freedom of expression of everyone except those with whom he most disagrees. It would not have bothered me in the least had M. Hollande included Mme Le Pen in the march, and then made a speech arguing that the National Front’s policies are bigoted, and not the answer to the present crisis (however exaggerated that would be). Instead, he chose to exclude her, as someone whose positions were simply beyond the pale of what it is acceptable. What is this if not the first step on the road towards the same attitude of totalitarian censorship which all of Paris, and M. Hollande, are supposedly marching against?
It is interesting to note that M. Hollande did manage to invite Turkish Minister Ahmet Davutoglu whose country is ranked 154th out of 180 countries, by Reporters Without Boarders, in protecting freedom of the press (WSJ Jan 14, 2014). Perhaps M. Hollande, and other western leaders, like Prime Minister Cameron, whose response to criticism from anti-EU politicians like Nigel Farage was similarly hypocritical, actually admires the Turkish government. They are, after all, part of NATO, though they are much more keen on imprisoning journalists than the Russians.
Most distressing of all, however, was French Prime Minister Manuel Valls’ speech before the National Assembly, in which the chef de gouvernement said, with rousing passion, that “extraordinary situations require extraordinary measures” and then proceeded to call for legislation to enhance the state’s power of surveillance — all in the name of freedom. If the French government is so concerned about preserving the society which has been so violently attacked, why then give the terrorists what they want by calling for extraordinary change. It is no wonder there are so many conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, which have been endorsed, in particular, by the Russian government, and are inevitably whizzing around the Internet as I write.
I myself have seen absolutely no evidence that any of these theories are credible. But when M. Valls’ speech to parliament makes one think of the raging senator from The Manchurian Candidate, it is easy to understand why people get suspicious. Perhaps if M. Valls, and indeed all our political leaders, took a page from the book of the noble French marchers, and actually defended the notion of liberty that was violently attacked last week, the world might start to believe in them.
