An analysis seems to be making the rounds in the English-speaking Internet "proving" that Charlie Hebdo was a racist, sexist, antisemitic paper. I think this is a big misunderstanding. But even some bloggers or posters I considered more enlightened have been swayed by it. I've even read a blog likening supporting Charlie to supporting "god hates fags" (i.e. yes, it's deeply offensive to me, but democracy hinges on freedom of expression so I have to support the rights of those people to offend me).
So, as both a French and regular reader, I've decided to try and explain what Charlie Hebdo is all about.
Main point 1: Charlie Hebdo is basically a left-wing anarchist, anti-authoritarian (with the anti-religious consequence), anti-racist paper. If you wonder if a cartoon is second degree, is using popular French meme to make a point or really endorsing them, just remember that.
Main point 2: Charlie IS offensive. That's their schtick. That's how they try to raise awareness or make you think back about some news. They do offend most French, too, not only you. If you've managed to read through an entire issue without feeling offended or at least annoyed at some point, you haven't read carefully enough, or are very lucky with this issue, or completely align with their views (doubful, they even manage to offend each others within the paper, but more on that later). If you end wondering if a cartoon aims to support some offensive view or to shock you (ideally shock you into examining your own prejudices), here's your answer.
Now, for some more details, for those who aren't afraid of block of texts:
Have Charlie Hebdo ever published prejudiced cartoons: YES.
Within its staff are or have been (RIP) some old men whose understanding of society was forged in the first half of the 20th century, or some very angry men. Sine could be very offensive and close to base antisemitism when attacking Israel. Wolinsky could look like the niciest man on earth and still remember with fondness times when his group of male friends would force girls to get naked in front of them (without touching them, mind you, creating a safe space, but yet saying "we won't touch you but won't open the door before you disrobe" :-/ )
I wouldn't be surprised if you demonstrated me that some of them had some antiquated, pre-colonial views on the inhabitants of north and/or sub-saharian africa.
Did Charlie endose those views? Answer: what the hell does that mean?
Charlie is not a monolith, nor is it an organisation with a "party line" to toe or any kind of political commissar. It's a paper where freedom of expression is at a premium, where the cartoonists can actually offend each-other. I've witnessed potshots at each-others for having been sexist, racist, or antisemit in a previous week cartoon. And not just politically-correct friendly shots, mind you. I can remember at least a couple times when those shots led to a resignation. I can remember one time when the editor banned a drawing too offensive for him (refering to a friend and artistic partner of him having turned out to be a pedophile), not only was the drawing finally published in the next isssue but he took hell for it.
But if you don't just look at the images, but read the texts, read the articles, once again you'll notice my main point 1. Charlie is anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-authoritarian, and takes no prisonners in that approach. Some cartoonists might use racist or sexist images to make their point, or to better offend you, but if you really want to find a paper line, a gobal opinion for the paper, here it is. We do have humorists in France who use humour and provocation as a cover for airing racists or antisemit views, that's true, you're right to be wary when you see offensive drawings like most Charlie covers. But Charlie was not part of them (and actually attacked them often enough).
How come they never caught flak for that approach? They have.
France doesn't have a first amendment. We have laws restricting freedom of speech. Homophobia, racism, antisemitism and shoa-denialism are condemned, in addition to the usual laws against defamation.
Charlie had to defend several times against lawsuits, and did lose some. They actually ended as poster-boys as for why such laws are dangerous and can be turned around, after losing against a far-right organisation lawsuit for "anti-French racism" when one of their caption read "pays de cons" (approx. trad: "country of cunts"), or being attacked by catholic association feeling insulted. A part of their budget, quite significant because they are a ad-less paper, was devoted to retaining a couple of lawyers and fighting the lawsuits. And yes, some anti-racist, anti-sexist, or jews-protection organisations did also attack them. But all in all, justice has always recognized that the paper as a whole was not racist, sexist, or antisemit.
They also caught political flak, for being irresponsible, because provoking muslims would endanger French diplomats or troops abroad. There was actually a debate within the paper about that point, when they were about to republish the Danish Mohammed cartoons. The offensive wing won with two arguments: terrorists would find an excuse to attack France anyway, unless we step down on secularism which was not desirable, and not offending muslims would actually be racist or islamophobe as Charlie normally offends everyone. True to their style, they subtitled the next issue "journal irresponsable" (irresponsible paper), owning it.
They also caught flak on the illegal, threats side. Previous paper collaborators have been beaten by catholic or far-right goons while exiting a TV studio where they'd had a debate against catholics. Their previous offices had been firebombed. And there was a reason why Charb, the current editor, had a bodyguard with him. (I'd like to pay hommage to one thing that worked in our country here and at least one person had principles: a policeman was assigned to guard the editor of a paper that routinely and offensively criticized the police, did his job, and lost his life for it)
Why are they so offensive? Here, you have to bear with a little history.
First, there's a French tradition of offensive cartoons, coming from the 19th century. The BBC did a nice article on it.
Second, Charlie Hebdo is rooted in being offensive. That's how they were born, that's what they are: in the fifties and sixties, France was under general de Gaulle's thumb, rebuilding after war, and fighting the emancipation of its colonies. It was a democracy, but with a strong authoritharian bend. Some laws were still in used that allowed censorship. Radio and TV was not only publicly-funded but directed by the state and there was actually a guy with a "censorship button" in the office ready to cut them off the air if they were too offensive. The youth was supposed to abide by what was deemed proper. Male students could not visit female students. Medical students could be failed just because they failed to show for the final examination with a tie. The administration was still full of former collaborators, who had worked with the nazis during WW2, and often in senior positions.
That frustration would eventually lead to the 1968 student revolts, but those revolts didn't arise out of thin air. Some young artists started trying to shake out those social bounds with provocation, with trying to see how offensive they could get before the government had to admit that press wasn't really free. Led by writer Cavanna, they created a monthly paper named "Hara Kiri", subtitled "journal bête et méchant" (dumb and nasty paper), where young cartoonist like Cabu, Wolinsky (two of the victims of wednesday), Reiser, Gébé, Wilhem, Fred, and others, who are still a reference for today's artists, honed their style.
They flirted with censorship, being banned on and off, until 1970, when general de Gaulle died in his town of Colombey. The same month, the news were about a dancefloor fire where a lot died because the emergency exits had been shut, that a lot of paper refered to as a "bal tragique" (tragic dance). The next Hara-Kiri cover titled "Bal tragique à Colombey: 1 dead" (tragic dance in Colombey: 1 dead). The offense was too great for the government who overall banned the paper. Other papers, afraid for their freedom, supported Hara-Kiri, even the ones who found them offensive. Thanks to that strong support, Cavanna and the team decided to republish the paper identically, just under a new name, and dare the government also ban the new one. At the time, they were switching to a weekly formula and had won an agreement to publish the Peanuts in France, four pages a week. Weekly, in French, is "hebdomadaire". You all know Charlie Brown. So was "Charlie Hebdo" born.
Born from and for being offensive, with the aim of being offensive until there's nothing left in our society to be offended about. The day when Charlie Hebdo tone it down, you can be worried for the state of French democracy.
Okay, that was long, but I hope I've shed some light on what kind of iconic paper Charlie Hebdo was for the French.
