Hi everyone,
Hope you are doing well. Instead of a pure analysis piece, this one will be part opinion as well. As you may know, a middle school teacher was beheaded a month ago in France by a Muslim extremist in protest of how he used the Charlie Hebdo case in class (with cartoons) as an example of free speech. A concerned father was offended when the student told him, and posted his outrage on Twitter, which reached eighteen-year old Abdoullakh Anzorov, who was a Chechen refugee born in Russia. You can read more about it here and here. As you may know, Charlie Hebdo is a satirical French magazine which caused outrage a few years ago in January 2015 when they published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, which insulted Muslims around the world. This resulted in a gun rampage when jihadists stormed the magazine office in Paris and killed twelve workers, which was the beginning of a wave of jihadist attacks across France.
Five years later, the same topic of discussion is revised with this tragedy: to what extent is free speech a civil right to be upheld if it infringes on other people’s freedom of expression and religion? According to ABC Religion and Ethics, French President Macron views Paty as a martyr who died upholding French values of the nation, and that the educational system is an institution of the state. He refuses to see this event as a random event, and views it as a wave of Islamic terrorism against France
[A]t first I believed it to be a random act of madness, a senseless arbitrary act: another victim of gratuitous terrorism. After all, he wasn’t the Islamists’ main target, he was simply teaching. He wasn’t an enemy of the religion they exploit: he had read the Koran, he respected his students whatever their beliefs and was interested in Muslim civilization.
No, on the contrary, 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.
“Macron is Right to Stand with Free Speech and the World Should Stand with Him”– ABC Religion and Ethics
To me, the public nature of the death confirms that it was meant to bring message to scare others as a means of control. Because he was attacked in broad daylight, because it was posted on social media (and even justified it in the name of Allah) and because the perpetrator’s only defense was air gun pellet (he intended to die as a martyr)…. I fully understand Macron’s perspective that this was a war against the state in the name of religious extremism.
In addition, Al-Jazeera, a Quatari owned news agency, provided an interesting perspective. The article emphasized than innocent Muslims make up 80% of the deaths from terrorist attacks, and that they also suffer from radical extremism. This is interesting, because it offers a less divisive view, especially for right-wing French nationals, that they are in this fight together against radical Islam. Secondly, it offered a less abrasive view of Macron and almost defended him; Charlie Hebdo was not a state-run organization (and that he did not necessarily agree with their political stances), but he respected their right to express their opinion.
Cultural perspectives:
Russia
As you may know, Russia is the largest country in the world, made up of nearly two hundred different ethnicities living in various regions. Ethnic Russians of Slavic descent make up nearly 80% of the population, while minorities make up the rest. Chechnya, where Abdoullakh Anzorov was originally from, is a Muslim-majority Russian republic in the North Caucasus region of Russia. Similar to Western Europe, Russia has also suffered from terrorist attacks from Chechen bombers, including the Beslan School Siege where 186 children died, and the wave of apartment bombings in 1999. So what would be the connection between Russia, France, and Chechnya? France has offered asylum to many Chechens following a war between Russian forces and Islamist separatists in Chechnya in the 1990s and early 2000s. Abdoullakh Anzorov and his family were accepted as refugees in France after the Chechen war, which demonstrate the linkage between Eastern and Western Europe. I was also confused because France is not known to have many Russian nationals, let alone Chechens (a disenfranchised social group in Russia), so now I understand. I thought it was important to highlight how nationality is viewed differently from ethnicity in Russia. Although he was born in Russia, he is not viewed as a white Slavic Russian, but a Muslim Chechen. There are even two different words: ‘Russkiy’ (Русский) which means an Ethnic Russian, while ‘Rossiyanin’ (Россиянин) is used by ethnic minorities who have citizenship. The article almost mentioned that he spent the last 12 years in France, and has no connection to the state of Russia (thereby hinting that his actions were entirely influenced by his religious background, and not his country of birth).
Canadian Perspective (English and French roots)
From a Canadian perspective, I immediately thought about Quebec, the French province in Eastern Canada. A history lesson: as you may know, Canada has French and English settler roots which shaped the beginnings of the nation. The French settlers were mostly Catholic and resided in French Canada (now the province of Quebec), and the English settlers were mostly Protestant and resided in English Canada (now the province of Ontario). In the 1960s, Quebec went through a cultural revolution called “the Quiet Revolution” in response to the dominance of the Catholic church in aims of a secular society. Even today, this is evident in a 2019 legislation that Quebec passed, such as forbidding public servants to wear articles of clothing expressing their faith, such as a Muslim hijab or Jewish kippah. This is similar to the law passed in France in 2004. Another example would be the strongest swear word in (Quebecois) French: “tabarnak” which expresses irritation and anger, and also has a religious connotation (a tabernacle was a religious dwelling). This goes beyond saying that Lord’s name in vain because it also devalues religion by entwining it with a negative connation.
In my opinion, this demonstrates France and Quebec’s version of secularism. English Canada is also secular, and also values of freedom of speech, though it values freedom of religion more than the French speakers do. In my opinion, another difference is that their version is secularism also looks anti-religion, while the idea of religion coexists more peacefully in English-speaking Canada. I would attribute this to history, and how Catholicism oppressed the French more than Protestantism restricted the English settlers in Canada.
French Perspective
For the French perspective, I want to demonstrate French philosopher Voltaire’s idea of freedom of speech: ” I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” According to French president Macron, this belief is intertwined in the French republic, and that it is crucial to uphold this freedom of expression, even if it offends people. This is different than the Anglo-Canadian perspective, which has strong English influences, that prefer indirect communication and are afraid of offending others. If you compare Voltaire’s ideas from long ago, to Macron’s words today in 2020 (please see above), you will see that they are rooted in the intellectual and social fabric of France and French culture.
My Opinion
Now, let’s add everything up together. Those ideas from long ago did not take into radical Islam, nor provide a blueprint on how to handle extremist attacks. With globalization and porous borders, I think that states need to rethink how they approach sensitive topics such as religion. I am not offending the religious extremists; in fact, I think that using violence in the name of Allah (or God for me) is hypocritical. Without discussing any particular religion, they are clearly aggressors and spoilers to peace. Non-state actors using violence to control the state definitely goes against the values a religious person subscribes too, and for the non-religious, any sense of morality. What I want to do is to think of solutions, because (in my opinion) even one death from religious extremism is one too many. An educator died a violent death in broad daylight when he walking home from the school weeks after teaching students about the Charlie Hebdo case (and then the perpetrator took a picture of the murder and posted it on social media). If I were a French policy-maker, I would definitely be scared and would reconsider how the state can proceed with further aggravating extremists in the country. How can I uphold the freedom of speech while respecting the freedom of religion?
What are your thoughts?
Many thanks,
Guest
