The Charlie Hebdo Affair, Freedom of Expression, and Apologia for Terrorism Under French Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 133-155
Author(s):  
Lyombe Eko
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
French Law ◽  
Charlie Hebdo

scholarly journals Provocative Speech in French Law: A Closer Look at Charlie Hebdo

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Asma T. Uddin
Keyword(s):  
French Law ◽  
Charlie Hebdo

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Jonathan Ervine
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
French Society ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Stand Up Comedy ◽  
Career Trajectories ◽  
Charlie Hebdo

This introduction will briefly discuss the ways in which the January 2015 attacks on the offices of Charlie Hebdo provoked debates about humour and freedom of expression, as well as the limits of humour. It will argue that debates surrounding Charlie Hebdo are symptomatic of tensions and contradictions within French society when it comes to exploring multiculturalism and humour. It will also show that it is necessary to take a wider view that traces the evolution of debates about humour and the career trajectories of leading humourists. The last decade is a period during which stand-up comedy has grown in stature in France, and differing ways of evoking socio-political issues about French society have emerged.

scholarly journals Charlie Hebdo: Testing the Limits of Freedom of Expression

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Niaz A. Shah
Keyword(s):  
Public Space ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Muslim Community ◽  
The Public ◽  
Shared Space ◽  
The Right ◽  
Charlie Hebdo

AbstractThe right to freedom of expression is a qualified right: it allows expression that might ‘offend, shock or disturb’ but prohibits ‘insults’, ‘abusive attacks’ and ‘hate speech’. Applying the Convention test I argue that all cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, which although might offend Muslims, are an acceptable form of expression in Western democracies except cartoon number two implying the Prophet Muhammad as a ‘terrorist’ which is ‘insulting’ and ‘an abusive attack’ on the Muslim community and Islam. In the post-9/11 circumstances, it may be viewed as a vehicle for instigating hatred against the Muslim community. By critiquing the inaction of Denmark and France, I argue that failure to prosecute Jyllands-Posten and Charlie Hebdo violates Articles 9(1) of the European Convention and the Danish Criminal Code and the French Freedom of Press Act 1881. Relying on ECtHR’s jurisprudence, I argue that the values of the Convention and democracy aim to nurture a society based on tolerance, social peace, non-discrimination and broad-mindedness. The public space is a shared space and no single group – religious and non-religious – can monopolise nor intimidate it.

scholarly journals Freedom of Expression, Secularism and Defamation of Religion: The Case of Charlie Hebdo

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 276
Author(s):  
Peonidis
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Terrorist Attack ◽  
Religious Faith ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Basic Rights ◽  
Legal Sanctions ◽  
Religious Criticism ◽  
Charlie Hebdo

I argue that under normal circumstances a state that is liberal and secular should not use its legal apparatus to suppress the publication of cartoons like those that triggered the deadly terrorist attack on the premises of Charlie Hebdo in 2015, if it is determined to abide by its core values. These values, which include religious neutrality, religious freedom, and unhindered freedom of criticism, imply that individual citizens are prima facie legally free to express their disapproval of particular religions or religious faith in general, through any non-violent means they consider appropriate, including parody and ridicule. This idea is open to various objections. Those focusing on the protection of religion as such can be easily dismissed, but the charge that defamation of religion causes offence to believers has to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, I defend the view that we need something stronger than taking offense to justifiably ban harsh religious criticism. In particular, I argue that, if the above sort of criticism prevents its recipients from exercising their basic rights or it incites third parties to engage in criminal activities against the above individuals, it should be subject to legal sanctions. However, this is not the case with the cartoons that appeared in Charlie Hebdo, since, as far as I can tell, no basic rights of French Muslims were violated, and no violent actions were committed against them as a result of their publication.

Humour in Contemporary France

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Ervine
Keyword(s):  
Social Cohesion ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
French Society ◽  
International Media ◽  
Stand Up Comedy ◽  
Career Trajectories ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Charlie Hebdo

This timely study sheds new light on debates about humour and multiculturalism in France, and is the first monograph about multiculturalism and humour in France to be published in either English or French that analyses both debates about Charlie Hebdo and stand-up comedy. It will examine humour, freedom of expression and social cohesion in France at a crucial time in France’s recent history following the Charlie Hebdo attacks of January 2015. It will evaluate the state of French society and attitudes to humour in France in the aftermath of the events of January 2015. This book will argue that debates surrounding Charlie Hebdo, although significant, only provide part of the picture when it comes to understanding humour and multiculturalism in France. This monograph will fill significant gaps in French and international media coverage and academic writing, which has generally failed to adequately examine the broader picture that emerges when one examines career trajectories of notable contemporary French comedians. By addressing this failing, this book provides a more complete picture of humour, multiculturalism and Republican values in France. By focusing primarily on contemporary comedians in France, this book will explore competing uses of French Republican discourse in debates about humour, offensiveness and freedom of expression. Ultimately, this work will argue that studying humour and multiculturalism in France in often reveals a sense of national unease within the Republic at a time of considerable turmoil.

Religion, Terrorism and Speech in a ‘Post-Charlie Hebdo’ World

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnes Callamard
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
Violent Extremism ◽  
Frame Work ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
Charlie Hebdo

This article reviews the policy responses and the freedom of expression case law following the Charlie Hebdo attack. It unpacks the ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ frame-work from a freedom of expression standpoint and analyses court decisions related to glorification of terrorism and incitement to hatred with a particular focus on France and the United States as well as Russia, and Scandinavia. It shows the determination of governments to tackle the non-violent “ideological” bases of “terrorism”, and to treat religion as largely a public order issue. It concludes that in a post-Charlie Hebdo world, courts also have taken short cuts, instrumentalising not only speech to perceived higher needs, but judicial reasoning and practices as well.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document