There is growing realisation that
perhaps the tragic attack at the Charlie Hebdo offices on Wednesday was
not actually about the cartoons themselves.
Instead, Charlie Hebdo represented a strategic target as part of a
broader tactic of polarisation.
Information is gradually trickling out that
suggests that at least one of the gunmen involved, Cherif Kouachi, had
long-standing terrorist links
to Iraq as a middle man funnelling funds to extremists and as an
aspiring fighter himself. His record of terrorist activity dates back to 2005 –
at least one year prior to the Danish cartoons controversy. This suggests that while the cartoons were certainly a
motivating factor, they cannot be labelled the impetus for Kouachi’s
motivations. He may, as it turns out, fit into
the increasingly familiar pattern of a disaffected European Muslim youth, with
little religious inclination aside from an interest in a politico-religious
narrative of vengeance against the “west”.
What’s more, although it’s not impossible, it
seems unlikely that Kouachi waited several years to undertake his revenge on Charlie
Hebdo following their publication of offensive images – the last major
scandal dates back to 2012 when the magazine published a series of cartoons in
the aftermath of the protests over “The Innocence of Muslims” Youtube
video. Rather, it is increasingly probable that
Kouachi may, as the Journal of Long War Studies suggests,
have received the military training abroad he seemed to aspire to. He
may have pledged allegiance to a terrorist group, perhaps al-Qaeda, perhaps
Islamic State (formerly Isis). The former has a long history of selecting
targets to cause maximum chaos, both structurally, but also symbolically –
think of the enduring power of the 9/11 attacks. There, the target was not random.
Al-Qaeda purposefully selected the tallest
buildings in America’s most iconic city, a financial centre, and a symbol of
American prosperity. Similarly, the London Underground was selected on 7/7 for
maximum disruption of the city. Perhaps what these men were actually targeting
here was a symbol, a European flashpoint which they were aware could reignite
heated debates over the place of Muslims in Europe. In so doing, they could
deepen already profound rifts in French society and establish an atmosphere
ripe for the recruitment of alienated youths, struggling to find their place in
a society ever more hostile to their presence.
Why France? After all, the Danes initiated the
cartoon controversy. In recent years, France has seen
increasing restrictions on religious freedom, denounced by Amnesty
International and other bodies monitoring human rights.
From the ban on headscarves in schools to face
veils in public spaces, alongside countless controversies over everything from
prayer rooms to halal food, the cycle of media ire
directed at Muslims has become near-incessant. This has not gone
unnoticed by extremists, who have used these issues in their output to proclaim
France as a land of inequity where Muslims can never truly be at home. They
have even used these events in propaganda videos to argue for Muslim emigration
to Isis-run territory. We know that France has one of
the highest numbers of foreign fighters recruited, which suggests some of this
rhetoric is resonating.
Secondly, why Charlie Hebdo? The magazine
was, of course, the French focal point of several controversies surrounding
incendiary depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. As a consequence of its choice
to print images that many other publications
considered pointlessly offensive, it was eulogised by anti-Muslim hate-mongers
who used the issue to assert a fundamental clash between “Islam and the west”,
understood in the sort of monolithic terms which refused to recognise western
Muslims or westerns who objected to Charlie Hebdo on grounds of
prejudice, not religion. Although these earlier controversies were polarising, there was middle ground for both Muslims who either didn’t
object or refused to care about what they saw as an attention-seeking
publication and various mainstream voices, including a former Charlie
Hebdo employee, Olivier Cyran, who denounced
the magazine for aggravating an already toxic atmosphere for French Muslims.
By targeting Charlie Hebdo, the nuance of this discussion has been lost entirely and the
attackers have succeeded in their attempt at polarisation. The
#JeSuisCharlie and #IamCharlie Twitter hashtags, which required uncritical
support of the magazine in lieu of sympathy with the murdered, only entrenched
this schism. It is, of course, entirely possibly to have little sympathy with a
publication which often crossed the line into racism, while having total
empathy and solidarity with the individuals murdered. For
many Muslims, these hashtags were an alienating challenge posited as “you’re
either with us, or with the terrorists”. Some responded with their own,
alternative hastags to underline the desire for solidarity with the dead and
their disgust with the actions of the gunmen. Writer and activist Dyab Abou
Jahjah initiated
#JeSuisAhmed with:
For him, like for many Muslims and critics of Charlie
Hebdo, a key principle was to avoid falling into precisely the sorts of
binaries it seems this attack was designed to create.
Various outlets have made much of the fact Charlie
Hebdo mocked “fanatics” – yes, they did, they
mocked the sacred symbols of many groups, but those of Muslims on a
particularly frequent basis and in a distinctly racialised tone.
Not that this should ever warrant a violent
response, but the eulogising of the magazine for some sort of mastery of
European satirical tradition is a white wash of its chequered history as well
as a capitulation to a simplistic narrative of “you’re either with the racist
satirists or you’re with the terrorists”. That narrative serves only the
extremes on both sides who want to perpetuate the notion that Muslims have no
place in Europe – they now appear to be working to the same end to “make life
harder for Muslims” (to quote one British neo-con
writer), with al-Qaeda sympathisers and far-right stirrers
converging to create the kind of schisms which would validate their narrative.
If these men turn out to be adepts of the cult
that is Isis – the last tweet on Charlie Hebdo’s account was a
cartoon of the Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – then rather than usurping the
tragedy as a means to berate Muslims for the alleged incompatibility of their
faith with “European mores”, much more has to be done to ensure this greater
alienation (the same variety which breeds identification with counter-cultural
groups) isn’t deepened. We must ensure slogans of
solidarity become more than just narrow and questionable support for the
targeted publication and instead provide resistance to all those voices which
seek to divide France, to entrench camps and harden the already worrying
divides. Mosques and Muslims in France have already begun to experience
a violent backlash, including a grenade
attack, and it really is time to counter the hate behind these murders by
rallying together behind a common solidarity – a solidarity rooted in the
acceptance of difference, in respect for others, and a commitment to defeating
those hell-bent on destroying the common fabric of our society.
沒有留言:
張貼留言