France, Charlie Hebdo and the meaning of Mohammed

The Charlie Hebdo bombing exposes a gulf in understanding between the secular French establishments and Muslim immigrants, says Myriam Francois-Cerrah

The firebombing of Charlie Hebdo offices following its decision to run an edition featuring the prophet Mohammed as “guest editor”, is a sad reflection of France’s uneasy relationship to Islam and religion more generally.Sadly, there are some who do not believe that Charlie Hebdo should have the right to publish a satirical issue, in which it presents Prophet Mohamed as the inspiration of the Arab revolutions and subsequent rise of islamist parties in the region (regardless of the accuracy of this link!). They are no doubt in a minority, just as those who committed this crime will no doubt be revealed to be a fringe group or renegade individuals.

But there is no denying the fact many Muslims are offended by the decision to run an issue entitled “Charia Hebdo”, with reference to “100 lashings if you don’t die of laughter” (chuckle) and a “halal aperitif” (ha!) and perhaps more pertinently, to run images of Prophet Mohammed.

Charlie Hebdo is renowned for being a highly satirical outlet which pushes the limits of public discourse on any given issue through its provocative illustrations and irreverent style. It has in its time, been accused of being anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic and now Islamophobic to boot and would no doubt parade these accusations as badges of honour.

However the recent issue comes at a complex time in France’s political life. The far right has made large advances, gaining 15 per cent of the vote in recent regional elections and they have maintained the “immigration question” near the top of the political agenda, drawing parallels between Muslims praying in the street and the Nazi occupation. Meanwhile, recent stats suggest that amongst the descendants of immigrants, 70 per cent, compared with 35 per cent amongst recent immigrants, consider that the French government does not respect them, including amongst those possessing university degrees and thus in theory, more “integrated” into the social fabric.

French Arabs face unemployment at a rate of 14 per cent compared with 9.2 per cent amongst people of French origin — even after adjusting for educational qualifications and are poorly represented at every level. Charlie Hebdo’s decision to poke fun at Islam, although completely inline with its treatment of other issues, comes at a time of intense polemics over the place of Islam within France, as debates over “laicite” galvanise the political spectrum.

Many Muslims appear to feel under siege in a political climate which continues to view Islam as an impediment to full adhesion to French national identity and where religious practise is associated with a social malaise. Indeed, a recent report by the French academic Gilles Kepel has reignited debate over the role Islam plays in the perpetuation of disenfranchisement in the suburbs, where Muslims are over-represented.

Some in France have sought to blame Islam for the high levels of unemployment, underachievement, violence and marginalisation in France’s ghettoised suburbs, while others have protested the Islamification of the discourse on the suburbs, decrying the use of confused and loaded terminology to overlook substantial economic and social problems in these areas. In France, with or without the caricatures, Islam is a sore topic with many recent polemics related to Islamic practises, whether the face veil debate, street prayers or the building of new mosques.

French Muslims are regularly told — even by the President — that you either “love France or you leave her”, reinforcing their status as outsiders, and a right-wing discourse which promotes ridiculous predictions of a Muslim take over of Europe through high birth rates and proselytising, is gaining ground. Christopher Caldwell, a contributor to the Financial Times recently published an inflammatory book Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West which has gained widespread media coverage, including on mainstream French TV, with its thesis that Europe is doomed in the face of a Islamic cultural invasion. In this context, marked by fear of Islam’s alleged resurgence, intractability and incompatibility with “French culture”, as well as the inability of many French Muslims to present an alternative perspective on an equal platform, are the seeds of profound social malaise.

Satire of religion has a long history in France and Christians are not exempt from what some groups have deemed insensitive and injurious portrayals of sacred persons or ideas. Since its launch on 20 October, Christian groups have regularly interrupted the Paris based theatrical production of “On the concept of the face of the son of God” (Sur le concept du visage du fils de Dieu) for its perceived blasphemy and “Christianophobia”.

The play features an elderly man defecating on stage and his son coming to clean his back side, using the portrait of Jesus. The excrement collected is then used at the end of the play by children as missiles to be thrown at the portrait of Christ, whilst at the end of the production, a black veil of excrement glides down the portrait of Jesus. In April this year, an art exhibit entitled Piss Christ, featuring a crucifix immersed in a glass containing blood and urine was vandalised by Christians outraged by the piece. Some religious groups have accused the arts and the media to resorting to crass provocations to raise the profile of otherwise mediocre artistic endeavours which might not have garnered public attention without the controversy.

Charlie Hebdo’s current confrontation with Islamic polemics is not its first. In 2008, it won a legal case against accusations of incitement to racial hatred when it chose to reprint the Danish cartoons, launched by the French Muslim Council (CFCM) and the Grand Mosque of Paris. Interviewed on recent events, Mohammed Moussaoui, president of the CFCM has both condemned the attack on Charlie Hebdo and the printing of the irreverent images.

Describing the decision to print images known to be offensive to Muslims as “hurtful” and questioning the association of the caricatures of Prophet Mohamed with events in Tunisia or Libya, he defended the right of those who opposed the decision to protest as well as the freedom of the press to print the said images and explained that in a plural society, people’s relationship to the sacred will necessarily vary.

The attack on the press outlet, Charlie Hebdo is symptomatic of the broader unease French society is facing in light of a growing visible Muslim minority. While successive generations of “French” origin are getting more secular in their outlook, with around 60 per cent of youths saying in 2008 that they had no religious belief, the pattern among the children of immigrants from north Africa, Sahel and Turkey is the opposite, as religion gains in importance, particularly among the young.

How France negotiates an inclusive public sphere in which the views of all its citizens, including those who abide by a religious tradition, are reflected remains a stark challenge. It is telling that Charlie Hebdo chose Mohammed as “guest editor”, rather than a contemporary figure who could express an accurate reflection of French Muslim opinion on current affairs — instead, it chose the route of ease, ascribing archaic and reactionary ideas to a sacred figure, his ideas rigidified and frozen in a literalist caricature, which although undoubtedly humorous in parts, is completely out of sync with how most Muslims understand Islam’s relationship to the modern context. This issue might be its best-selling; the real question though ought to be, is it its best?

Myram Francois-Cerrah is a writer, journalist and budding academic

Beijing film festival not banned but forced to falter

Independent film festivals around the world are usually bustling affairs. This was not so in the case of the Sixth Beijing Independent Film Festival.

The week-long event, scheduled to start last weekend, dampened down all its advertising for fear of being banned (not uncommon in China). The 120-odd films, including a showcase from Africa, do not have the government’s seal of approval for public exhibition and thus, if the event if big enough, is likely to incur the wrath of the authorities. The exact venue was kept secret until the opening day. A close friend of a director told me about it. When I asked if he was going he replied: “I’m not even sure it’s going to take place. They’re not even not sure it’s going to take place. It’s supposed to be in Songzhuang [an art district at the far fringes of Beijing’s eastern suburbs]. They’re not allowed to have a website or any promotion. It’s ridiculous. I heard they’ll only send round a text on the day to say if they can hold it so I’m not sure.”

As it turned out they did hold it. TIME magazine’s Austin Ramzy was there. Here’s what happened in Ramzy’s words:

The opening was held outside because the police forced at least two changes of venue, first from a local arts center and then from a hotel

Then the cops arrived. A local official walked into one of the makeshift theatres and demanded, ‘What are you doing here? What are you watching?’ The audience didn’t respond. Outside in the courtyard about a dozen police officers milled around, demanding identification from attendees…

The cops didn’t shut down the event, but they tried their hardest to make it clear that everyone was being watched and should probably just go home.

A big of Googling, and I found the original poster for the event which comically morphs a roll of film into a roll of toilet paper, no doubt an ironic reflection on some level of how the authorities view the festival’s illegitimate films.

Beijing Film Festival Poster

Is nothing sacred?

Self-censorship, market forces, nudity in Trafalgar Square and offence were all up for discussion at the launch of Index’s on Censorship magazine’s “Art Issue” on Wednesday at the Free Word Centre.

Artists Langlands & Bell gave a firsthand account of what it was like to have their work censored by the Tate despite their willingness to alter parts of the work to ensure the gallery was not in contempt of court. Ben Langlands spoke of the frustration they felt at not being able to show their work in its entirety – and with Tate for not being transparent about the reasons behind the removal of their film  “Zardad’s Dog”, part of their Turner-nominated The House of Osama Bin Laden.

But contemporary politics is of course only one factor determining what art the public gets to see.  Langlands also raised the subject of financial forces taking their toll on free expression in the art world. Artist Peter Kennard, who was in the audience, argued that, from the moment a student enrols in art school, censorship is at play, finding a comfortable home in art institutions, supported as they are by corporate sponsors. But London Mayor Boris Johnson’s culture chief Justine Simon argued that all subjects are fair game for artists. Another member of the audience, a legal consultant specialising in art law, spoke of the real danger galleries face if they choose to exhibit controversial art – often resulting in a visit from the police.

The Guardian’s art critic Adrian Searle lamented the fact that gallery publicity materials constantly insisted an exhibition would challenge preconceptions. “I can’t remember the last time that happened”, he said. “I want the right to be offended; I don’t want someone telling me what I can and can’t look at.”

Yasmine Alibhai-Brown, who spoke of her firsthand experience of paying the price for artistic freedom, denied the existence of any “fantastic freedom” in the UK. She insisted the real concern around freedom of expression in visual art was not offence, but a very real need for “sophisticated thought” in a complicated society. An honest and fair look at each individual context was necessary; occasionally “internal censorship is not a bad thing at all”, she added.

To subscribe to Index on Censorship’s award-winning magazine, click here.

Brazil: controversial Serbian film banned from RioFan festival

The controversial ‘A Serbian Film’ has been banned from being screened at the RioFan film festival by the event’s main sponsor, Brazilian national bank Caixa Econômica Federal. A statement on the festival’s website says organisers were given no further information behind the decision to veto the film’s screening. Meanwhile, a statement from a spokesman of the bank’s board claims “not every creative product fits in an unrestrained way in any medium or place.” RioFan responded by saying it opposes all forms of censorship.

‘A Serbian Film’ has raised controversy for its depictions of pornography and violence. It was cut from London’s FrightFest film festival last year, while in May the director of Spain’s Sitges film festival, Angel Sala, was charged with the exhibition of child pornography in connection with an adults-only screening of the film.

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK