Thoughts on the Charlie Hebdo Murders

Firstly, I am appalled as any other right thinking person would be over these murders. There is *never* a justification for violence, never mind murder, and the cowards that broke into the offices of this magazine and shot people need to be brought to justice. I hope that justice is swift and severe under French law, and my heart goes out to the victims and their families.

What I am about to say is NOT a justification for violence or murder, but a criminological analysis. We have to understand why people do what they do.

The magazine, Charlie Hebdo, has been publishing some pretty vile stuff about Islam and the Prophet Mohammed for some time. As this quote explains:

Charlie Hebdo has been the subject of violent attacks in the past, following its publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. Its offices were firebombed in 2011, and recent threats have also been made against it and other media groups. Riot police were deployed to its offices in 2012 after it published more Muhammad cartoons, including images of him naked.

I am 100% in support of Free Speech: it is a right that is not granted by a government, but inherent in each and every person. I am also in support of a Free Press. But, I am also in support of rational action.

France is a deeply divided nation, with a fast dropping native French birthrate and a growing immigrant population, largely from Muslim former French colonies. As we see in Germany, the native French culture and people are feeling at odds with and increasingly disliking the Muslim newcomers, which make up now 5-10% of the population according to the CIA Factbook. And, just as we saw in 2006 with the publication of the Islam mocking cartoons by the newspaper Jyllands-Posten in Denmark, a very strong reaction is going to come out of such actions.

Just because a person has an inherent Right to do something,that doesn't make it wise. Charlie Hebdo was threatened and attacked multiple times for these cartoons. And I'd like to point out, these were not well researched pieces of journalism that showed problems in Islam, or at least well thought opinion pieces, but vile things showing Mohammed to be gay, using the bathroom, etc.

Freedom of Speech means that the government cannot interfere with your political speech. It doesn't mean that you have the right to say anything you want, wherever you want. It further doesn't protect one from indignation and violence from people that would like to do harm over that speech. Imagine if I were racist and were putting out newspaper articles depicting African Americans as stereotypical dullards, eating fried chicken and popping out kids to add to welfare roles. Would I have the right to publish my nonsense? Sure. Would it be surprising if my office suddenly burned down, or I came to harm from some nuts who would like to do me in for that speech? Hardly. It doesn't *justify* their crimes, but I would certainly be indirectly provoking my own victimization (what we call "passive victim provocation" in criminology.)

The people that committed this crime are uncivilized trash. They need to be brought to justice. Civilized people do not use guns to deal with issues, but protest, boycott and other non-violent types of acts. But there are nuts out there that are waiting to do harm. What if I get mugged at an ATM at 3AM in a really seedy part of town? While the robbers should not have mugged me, haven't I indirectly put myself in danger by choosing dangerous surroundings?

The publishers of Charlie Hebdo had the right to publish what they wanted. Sadly, they provoked the wrong people, and death was the result. I realize this is an unpopular viewpoint, but I think they should have used a bit more circumspect judgment in deciding what to print. The balance between Freedom and Responsibility is pretty thin at times, and unfortunately, not everyone out there is sane, rational, or willing to deal with things in a civilized manner.