The “Terror” in Terrorism

Terrorists trade on fear. It is their currency of choice. To maximize fear, there is normally an element of surprise as well. No one knows when or where a terrorist activity will take place, so when it happens, it is typically unexpected. Terrorists also prefer to hit “soft” targets of civilians who are unprepared to defend themselves. The guns, weapons, military gear, internet posts ... all become important signs in a show of force that is totally out of proportion to what might be a small terrorist cell of two to ten members orchestrating the attack. And so it is that in recent months, we have seen “soft” targets being hit with murders at ​Lindt cafe in Sydney, Australia, as well as the hundreds of school girls kidnapped from their school in Baga, Nigeria. Each attack left behind a trail of fear in communities that will be forever anxious about the enemies in their midst.

Terrorism has no moral justification. The kidnapping, slaughter, enslavement, forced marriage, or other abuse of school girls seeking an education in defiance of Islamist terror group Boko Haram is unacceptable. The beheading of foreigners in the name of any injustice or perceived religious offense in Syria is unacceptable. The most recent strapping of bombs to school girls in Nigeria and remotely detonating the children to murder citizens in a public market is unacceptable. The last few months have been brutal, and they terrified people worldwide. However, the idea of terrorist activities occurring no longer shocks us. It is the way that terrorists seem to not care at all for human beings and are willing to conduct the most brutal and senseless murders that continues to horrify and overwhelm us.

“​Je Suis Charlie”
It was no different with the attack in Paris. ​Charlie Hebdo is a satirical newspaper whose editors claim they are atheists that poke fun at all religions. They have drawn cartoons that many people found offensive in the past, embarrassing everyone from the Pope to kings. However, when ​Charlie Hebdo drew a cartoon image of the Prophet Muhammad, Muslims around the world were enraged as their religious beliefs forbid images of the Prophet. So homegrown Parisian terrorist cells that trained with or supported, Al Qaeda, decided to attack the magazine. This was followed by an attack on a Jewish grocery store within 24 hours that would leave another four dead at that location. For hours, people around the world watched in horror as two terrorists (who were brothers) went on the run and thousands of police in France hunted them down. At the same time, another terrorist held remaining hostages in the grocery after killing four of them.

Eventually, with all terrorists dead during raids, the world began to understand the horror of the attack: 12 ​Charlie Hebdo employees and cartoonists were murdered; a Muslim police officer that begged for his life on the streets outside ​Charlie Hebdo building was also shot; four Jewish men in the grocery store were murdered; and a female police officer that unfortunately encountered one of them in traffic was also killed. There were also stories of heroism, including a Muslim employee of the Jewish grocery store that hid shoppers in the refrigerator in the store’s basement, saving their lives and earning French citizenship as a reward in the process.

In the days that followed, there were flowers and candles in memory of the dead strewn about the streets of Paris. The evenings were also filled with candlelight vigils and the tears of survivors. The world then learned about the wives, husbands, children, parents, and friends of those who died. The streets were also filled with defiant Parisians stating that they were not afraid and holding signs marked “​Je Suis Charlie​” (translation: ​“I am Charlie [Hebdo]”​), as if saying to the world that their freedom of speech could never be silenced by guns.

Charlie Hebdo - Satire?

Stephane Charbonnier was the Editor of ​Charlie Hebdo​. He has had many death threats in the past and has publicly stated that he would never be silenced. In a January 7th article titled “Charlie Hebdo’s Cartoons were Racist, Not Satirical,” ​Huffington Post journalist Hana Shaffi states that she felt the ​Charlie Hebdo magazine was not really satirical, but was “... racist, sexist and homophobic ... ” and offended many people, including her. She added that “while we must always stand for free speech, we should not be afraid to voice valid criticisms of a highly controversial publication.” Charbonnier and his small magazine team continued to publish what they referred to as satirical cartoons that poked fun at all religions and people. However, his prior depictions of the Prophet Muhammad were rejected by many Muslims and were said to be behind this small group’s decision to conduct the attack on the magazine staff.

Three of the terrorists (there was at least one woman and a few other men that escaped) were French-born and of the Muslim faith, but years earlier they turned to terrorism in solidarity with ISIS and Al Qaeda extremist groups in Syria. However, though many Muslims may have also found the cartoon images offensive, the fact is that only this small group of people decided that this offense was punishable by death.

Terrorist activities can never be considered an acceptable response to disagreements in a civil society. My parents recently shared with us that in the past, other offensive works of art and artists have insulted the Catholic faith. For example, in 1992, singer Sinéad O’Connor tore up pictures of the Pope in a ​Saturday Night Live performance. In 2000, an exhibit in the ​Brooklyn Museum of Art included a depiction of the Virgin Mary with animal feces scattered on the picture. Clearly these were highly offensive images. However, those that were offended expressed their anger and frustration in protests and boycotts. There was no terrorism response. As (Catholic) Pope Francis said recently in response to the killings, “One cannot kill in the name of God.”

“As exemplified by our freedom of speech vs freedom of religion, this situation calls attention to the fact that our rights, while both greatly valued and needed, will at times conflict. This now presents the question of, in a given situation, which civil right ought to be valued more when one infringes on another? Should we place limits on our freedom of speech in order to protect freedom of religion and uphold common human decency?”

— Gibran Caroline Boyce

Our Competing Freedoms

The events at ​Charlie Hebdo’s office seemed, in part, like a battle between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. The goal of a fair and just society is to uphold utilitarianism. Supported by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, this is the philosophical theory that we should maximize benefits for our society overall. In other words, at the end of the day, you want to do what will provide the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people.

In the situation with ​Charlie Hebdo​, many people believed that in order to uphold common human decency, ​Charlie Hebdo writers should have not published the article therefore limiting their freedom of speech in order to maximize the right to practice religion without judgment. As exemplified by our freedom of speech vs freedom of religion, this situation calls attention to the fact that our rights, while both greatly valued and needed, will at times conflict. This now presents the question of, in a given situation, which civil right ought to be valued more when one infringes on another? Should we place limits on our freedom of speech in order to protect freedom of religion and uphold common human decency?

In the western world, we have mostly been comfortable with the rights of newspapers to publish their opinions on anything, even if it is at times offensive. And we protect that first amendment right fiercely. However, we also protect our right to practice our religion without ridicule. Freedom of Speech is such a protected right in countries like America and France that any to restrict it would be met with resistance even when it offends religious or other beliefs. So does that mean that Freedom of Speech is more important than respect for religion, race, or gender?

Should freedom of speech still be protected if it attacks religious beliefs? These cartoonists had a right to freely express their satirical, even offensive, points of view, and others also reserved the right to reject it, but not murder as a result. In the days that followed, Pope Francis seemed to be saying that there is a limit to free speech as it should not seek to offend sacred religious beliefs or tenets. We have, as a society, worked hard to protect our rights and freedoms afforded by the Constitution, but is there a limit?

Our freedoms come with tremendous responsibility, and as Pope Francis publicly commented after the terrorist act: “... there is a limit to free speech”. We are forced to respect the fact that we cannot necessarily yell “​fire​” in a crowded theatre despite the rights of free speech because it would be irresponsible and might cause a stampede and put lives at risk. We, as a society, have to be responsible with our freedoms, yet we cannot entertain terrorist groups taking away our rights or murdering our unarmed citizens if our speech offends.

As Parisians held signs of “​Je Suis Charlie​” in their candlelight vigils and heads of state locked arms to walk the streets of Paris in a show of solidarity, it was as if the world was saying to terrorists that even though you disagree with free speech, the world will not sit idly and allow you to restrict our freedoms or massacre us when we don’t. Killing unarmed civilians is simply an act of terrorism, and it isn’t justified under any circumstance. So, we ask, “Who drew first?”. The cartoons drawn did not justify the guns that were drawn. The terrorists drew first. Furthermore, a world united behind the cartoonists and others that were killed also shows future terrorists that the pen may truly be mightier than the sword.