On the 7th of January 2015, gunmen entered the office of Charlie Hebdo and shot dead 12 people, injuring a further 11. Then ensued what the BBC describes as ‘three days of terror’, as the police attempted to track down the gunmen before they escaped. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30708237) In the end, the gunmen were shot dead by the police. These series of events raised a massive public outcry, from within France itself, throughout Europe and all over the world. The events of charlie hebdo, and the extensive press coverage and unprecedented support for charlie hebdo has transformed it from a narrative to a social phenomena. It could be said that there is 'pre-Charlie Hebdo' France and 'post-Charlie Hebdo' France. The world stood and
…show more content…
There is also a very French quality that echoes the famous words by Voltaire: ‘’Give me liberty or give me death!’ While there is an unanimous agreement that the events in Paris were 'utterly horrifying', but there is debate as to why the events in Paris received so much attention. Erlanger describes it as the 'days of sirens, fear and blood' and as 'France's 911' (NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/world/days-of-sirens-fear-and-blood-france-is-turned-upside-down.html?_r=0), placing the attack into the context of the worsening economic and social condition in France. There had been considerable reaction to the events of Charlie Hebdo, and what’s interesting is the way others, not part of the mainstream, have also reacted. After the events in Paris there was an initial outpouring of support for Charlie Hebdo, though soon others began to criticise the newspapers and the ‘Je suis Charlie’ movement itself (the hashtag #jenesuispascharlie, for …show more content…
Noam Chomsky thinks so. In his piece on CNN, he writes the hypocrisy of those who condemn the acts in Paris with such vigour, when it is the West that have perpetrated acts of violence against freedom expression as well. It has given politicians the excuse to bring in tighter, more stringent counter-terror laws, such as the proposed extremism measures in Britain by David Cameron. The bill proposes ‘a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print.’ http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/counter-terrorism-bill-extremism-disruption-orders-david-cameron ‘The social regulation of speech... places regulation in the hands of the powerful’ writes Waleed Aly. (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/05/27/3767961.htm) There is a double standard when it comes to applying the ideals of freedom of speech to situations; it is permissible in circumstances where it agrees with the orthodoxy. It is only violated by outside parties, when ‘public order’ and ‘democracy’ are being threatened? The laws in France speak of a type of selective freedom that is applies in some situations, but not others. This is exemplified in France’s ban on a pro-Palestine rally, which was largely attended by Muslims. Yet again, the language of ‘public order’ is used to silence the voices of marginalised peoples speaking
There is also a very French quality that echoes the famous words by Voltaire: ‘’Give me liberty or give me death!’ While there is an unanimous agreement that the events in Paris were 'utterly horrifying', but there is debate as to why the events in Paris received so much attention. Erlanger describes it as the 'days of sirens, fear and blood' and as 'France's 911' (NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/world/days-of-sirens-fear-and-blood-france-is-turned-upside-down.html?_r=0), placing the attack into the context of the worsening economic and social condition in France. There had been considerable reaction to the events of Charlie Hebdo, and what’s interesting is the way others, not part of the mainstream, have also reacted. After the events in Paris there was an initial outpouring of support for Charlie Hebdo, though soon others began to criticise the newspapers and the ‘Je suis Charlie’ movement itself (the hashtag #jenesuispascharlie, for …show more content…
Noam Chomsky thinks so. In his piece on CNN, he writes the hypocrisy of those who condemn the acts in Paris with such vigour, when it is the West that have perpetrated acts of violence against freedom expression as well. It has given politicians the excuse to bring in tighter, more stringent counter-terror laws, such as the proposed extremism measures in Britain by David Cameron. The bill proposes ‘a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print.’ http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/counter-terrorism-bill-extremism-disruption-orders-david-cameron ‘The social regulation of speech... places regulation in the hands of the powerful’ writes Waleed Aly. (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/05/27/3767961.htm) There is a double standard when it comes to applying the ideals of freedom of speech to situations; it is permissible in circumstances where it agrees with the orthodoxy. It is only violated by outside parties, when ‘public order’ and ‘democracy’ are being threatened? The laws in France speak of a type of selective freedom that is applies in some situations, but not others. This is exemplified in France’s ban on a pro-Palestine rally, which was largely attended by Muslims. Yet again, the language of ‘public order’ is used to silence the voices of marginalised peoples speaking