Some Thoughts on the Charlie Hebdo Massacre

Could the Charlie Hebdo massacre have happened in a country without a significant Muslim minority?

　
Certainly there have been many Islamist terrorist atrocities in Western countries with tiny Muslim populations, most notably the September 11 attack in New York, but also in Madrid in 2004 and in Australia late last year.

　
But while those attacks were motivated by the foreign policy of the affected countries, the target of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, France's free press, was internal. The same is true of the plot to kill cartoonists in Denmark after they published similar images of Mohammed. The attacks in France and Denmark were not directed at blasphemy itself, but the dissemination and widespread display of blasphemous images in countries inhabited by large numbers of Muslims.

　
Although they employed extreme methods, it seems likely that the Charlie Hebdo murderers were motivated by the same things that anger many peaceful Muslims in France; the depiction in public view of mocking images of one of the most revered figures in their religion. So when the current wave of revulsion and defiance in the wake the Charlie Hebdo attacks subsides, the debate about freedom of speech and Muslims' right not to be offended will resume, probably with renewed force. Sophisticated anti-blasphemists will argue not for a blanket enactment of blasphemy laws but for a series of soft censorship measures designed to shield Muslims’ eyes from depictions of Mohammed. Display of such images in mass media outlets such as national TV stations and newspapers would be out of the question. Niche magazines that publish them, such as Charlie Hebdo, would still be available to those who want them, but they could only buy them by mail order or under the counter, because they would be banished from public display. They could also be viewed on the Internet, possibly with a warning page similar to those that alert web browsers they are about to view adult content.

　
Proponents of such measures would claim to have devised a solution that allows anyone who wants to view these images to continue doing so while protecting those who are offended by them. They could even point to vaguely similar precedents in Western European countries, such as, to use a UK example, the ban on ferry companies sailing on Sundays to Scottish islands that observe the sabbath strictly, which was was only recently lifted.

　
But no one could claim that France or any other country that chose to implement anti-blasphemy measures did not have a less free media. True freedom of expression doesn't just mean the right to say anything that does not break libel, incitement and other laws, but being able to say them in the public arena so they can be discussed, debated and derided. This freedom may have some unsavoury consequences, but it is an essential component of European civilisation and it would be folly to relinquish it.