NEWS
Charlie Hebdo attack: No more excuses
04 Nov 2011
BY JAMES KIRCHICK

The smoke had barely cleared from the firebombed office of Charlie Hebdo magazine – attacked for publishing cartoons of Mohammed – when TIME magazine’s Bruce Crumley chose to criticise the satirists before the terrorist. James Kirchick denounces a too-familiar tendancy
Charlie Hebdo office bombed

There exists an unspoken rule in the Republic of Letters — that land where novelists, poets, mere ink-stained wretches like myself, think tank scholars who churn out dry policy reports…really anyone who writes for a living, reside: No one should be physically harmed, let alone threatened, for something that they publish. Don’t get me wrong. I love literary feuds, even the bristling, (if well placed and rare), ad hominem attack. But the minute someone raises a fist, he’s lost the argument. Indeed, it’s a sign of a shallow mind and an insecure personality (see Norman Mailer) when a writer, flummoxed by the prowess of his intellectual adversary, resorts to throwing a scotch glass across the room. I hope that if my worst enemy, someone who wrote things that I absolutely despise, were ever confronted with violence by a fanatic of any sort, (even someone ostensibly “on my side”), I would defend him to the hilt.

Writers in the West rarely have to confront violence, certainly not from the state. Writers with a social conscience understand that they have something important in common with writers, whom they may never know, in far away lands. We are united in a fundamental belief: that freedom of expression is irrevocable and fundamental to a free society. We see this grand tradition of literary solidarity in organizations like PEN International, advocates for writers in authoritarian regimes whose lives and livelihoods are threatened by the mere exercise of activities which we in the West take for granted. And you see it in this fine publication, Index on Censorship, which for four decades has been exhaustively documenting challenges to free expression around the world.

That’s why the fatwa against Salman Rushdie was such a clarifying moment; here was a man who had published a book in the birthplace of free speech — the United Kingdom — whose murder had been suborned by a fanatical cleric halfway around the world. As Christopher Hitchens wrote about the death warrant put out for his friend, “I thought then, and I think now, that this was not just a warning of what was to come. It was the warning. The civil war in the Muslim world, between those who believed in jihad and Shari’a and those who did not, was coming to our streets and cities.”

Over the past decade, that civil war has intensified on the streets of Western cities; Amsterdam, (where the artist Theo van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight for a film which criticized misogynistic Koran verses), Nyhamnsläge, (the Swedish village where the home of cartoonist Lars Vilks, who drew images of Mohammed, has been repeatedly attacked), Aarhus (the Danish town where fellow prophet-image-maker Kurt Westergaard had to hide in a “panic room” after an axe-wielding Muslim broke into his home). It has thus been heartening to see this fundamental understanding among writers — that, no matter our political disagreements, we are all colleagues in a vitally important element of the free society — flower in response to a truly vile little excrescence by Bruce Crumley, the Paris correspondent for TIME magazine.

On Tuesday morning, the offices of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo were firebombed after it named the Prophet Muhammed its “editor-in-chief” for an upcoming issue. In an article entitled, “Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr,” Crumley taunted the paper’s editors. “Do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of ‘because we can’ was so worthwhile?” he asked. Crumley, who would make an excellent propaganda commissar in Uzbekistan or Iran, chided French politicians for “denouncing the arson as an attack on freedom of speech, liberty of expression, and other rights central to French and other Western societies,” which is exactly what it was.

The original title of Crumley’s piece, still viewable in the website URL, was “Firebombed French Paper: A Victim of Islam, Or Its Own Obnoxious Islamaphobia?” If a reader, so offended by Crumley’s excuse-making for theocratic nutcases, bombs TIME’s Paris Bureau, would that make Crumley a “victim” of his own obnoxious cowardice? If there was ever cause to deport someone from the Republic of Letters it would be Crumley’s article, for in it he committed treason against his trade by showing himself to be a man eager to rat out his fellow writers and sell them down the river in a heartbeat.

Though he fashions himself a bold truth-teller, Crumley’s justification of violent extremism isn’t new. It’s just the latest iteration of a tired excuse for terrorism, expressed by everyone from Noam Chomsky to Ron Paul, which is that the victims of terrorism have it coming. What made Crumley’s entry into the genre singularly poisonous, and what I believe elicited the widespread disgust from journalists of all political stripes, is that it was written by a working journalist, not an academic, politician, or anti-“Islamophobia” activist.

To take just two examples of people on polar opposite sides of the political spectrum: Michael Brendan Dougherty, a paleoconservative with whom I’ve sparred on more than one occasion, termed the piece “The Most offensive Thing You’ll Read Today” (my one quibble with his judgment is that this is the most offensive thing you will read all week, if not all month). Meanwhile, Spencer Ackerman, a man of the left, tweeted, “No one has the right not to be offended. No one has the right to firebomb a newspaper that offends them.”

It’s amazing, given all the struggles and sacrifices that have been made for freedom of speech over many years, that statements so simple bear repeating. But as long as we have moral cowards like Bruce Crumley around, repeat them we must.

James Kirchick is a contributing editor for The New Republic and a fellow of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Also read: Sara Yasin and Myriam Francois-Cerrah on France, Charlie Hebdo and the meaning of Mohammed

28 responses to “Charlie Hebdo attack: No more excuses”

  1. […] France: Charlie Hebdo Attack: No More Excuses […]

  2. […] have realised that they were values that needed to be protected from Americans. P.S. Over at Index on Censorship James Kirchick makes the essential point that arguments about free speech are always simpler than […]

  3. bullet says:

    Where, exactly, does atheism fit into this? Please save your off-topic and incoherent rants for the playground, where they belong.

  4. […] but it’s worth not filing under “too late” because it’s so eloquent – James Kirchick at Index on Censorship tells Bruce Crumley why he’s such a weasel. I have little or nothing to add, I just want to quote the juiciest remarks. As Christopher […]

  5. Pierce R. Butler says:

    … a tired excuse for terrorism, expressed by … Noam Chomsky …

    Is this just reflexive Chomsky-bashing, or can you (or anyone) cite some actual example(s)?

    For that matter, pls quote Ron Paul in the same regard.

  6. […] The original title of Crumley’s piece, still viewable in the website URL, was “Firebombed French Paper: A Victim of Islam, Or Its Own Obnoxious Islamaphobia?” If a reader, so offended by Crumley’s excuse-making for theocratic nutcases, bombs TIME’s Paris Bureau, would that make Crumley a “victim” of his own obnoxious cowardice? James Kirchick […]

  7. […] to make fun of their immature, brutal, bullying, cowardly religion.In addition, Jamie Kirchick asks pointedly:The original title of Crumley’s piece, still viewable in the website URL, was “Firebombed […]

  8. […] thank Ceiling Cat, James Circhick at Britain’s Index on Censorship sets things straight. (Note that the current title of the Time article is “Firebombed French […]

  9. […] Over at Index on Censorship James Kirchick makes the essential point that arguments about free speech are always simpler than […]

  10. […] On Tuesday morning, the offices of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo were firebombed after it named the Prophet Muhammed its “editor-in-chief” for an upcoming issue. In an article entitled, “Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr,” Crumley taunted the paper’s editors. “Do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of ‘because we can’ was so worthwhile?” he asked. Crumley, who would make an excellent propaganda commissar in Uzbekistan or Iran, chided French politicians for “denouncing the arson as an attack on freedom of speech, liberty of expression, and other rights central to French and other Western societies,” which is exactly what it was.  (More) […]

  11. brando says:

    I am glad people are waking up.Long live Free Speech Forever.See this article about “The MYTH of MUSLIM SPAIN as a MODEL of COEXISTENCE for TODAY”

    http://www.antisharia.com/2011/03/04/the-myth-of-muslim-spain-as-a-model-of-coexistence-for-today/

  12. […] This excellent article by Index on Censorship details the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s offices. Even more pointedly it details the response by Time Magazine’s Bruce Crumley who’d be better off as an editor for Taliban news considering his apparent sympathy for the terrorists, and his apparent disdain for free speech and satire. For a country that has freedom of speech enshrined in its constitution this really is a self-indictment of its premier news magazine. […]

  13. […] HER hos Index of Censorship. French firebombing: Attack on magazine is a violent reminder of the […]

  14. […] this is also a very well written opinion piece on TIME’s truly weak-kneed piece on the Charlie Hebdo […]

  15. […]  http://indexoncensorship.org/2011/11/charlie-hebdo-bomb-bruce-crumley-james-kirchick Auteur: James Kirchik […]

  16. […] vile little piece of dhimmitude in Time Magazine by Bruce Crumley. It has, expectedly, resulted in an onslaught about freedom of speech. Crumley clearly doesn’t understand that freedom of […]

  17. Madelyn says:

    The cover can be seen here.

    Will anyone print the images from the 4 page follow up to the bombing?

  18. Roelof says:

    That makes the rest nuts indeed.

  19. Roelof says:

    So.. Atheists are hypocrites. They scream for proof. But when it comes to creating, they leave it to someone else.

  20. Roelof says:

    Believe – action – result. Atheism is like blaming the unemployment, because someone finally started to do something. The rest became unemployed. Curse the one that work!

  21. Brulluhman says:

    There’s the lack and violence Atheists show. Your obligated to think like this or that! You have to act like this or that. North Korean style. But wait.. no Atheist is moving to North Korea.

  22. Benfatto says:

    Mr. Kirchik, I can completely agree with your article, except for the misrepresentation of the opinion of Ron Paul. He never said that the victims of terrorism have it coming. Paul says the American meddling in foreign affairs is what leads to terrorist attacks. The US, for instance, aids many dictators in the Middle East who oppress free speech, has many bases around the world, and is responsible for many innocents getting killed in wars that serve only special interest.

    I would think that you and I can agree with Paul that the US foreign policy is flawed and does more damage than good to freedom and free speech.

    Here´s a great example of his views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE

  23. Brulluhman says:

    Too bad, that ‘GeenStijl’ profiles themselves as intolerant. They believe people should think like this or that! Even call up on people to use violence when some have other opinions, like they do in North Korea. Meanwhile (with that outcome) they won’t move there. Our western culture is fragile and based on Judaism/Christianity/Modern Humanism (invented by a raised Chirstian) and old Greek philosophical norms and values. Atheïsm on the otherhand doesn’t create anything. Because for that people need believes.

  24. DavidMWW says:

    Oh, god. Someone had to say “dhimmitude”, didn’t they?

    Look, it’s got nothing to do with dhimmitude. It’s just a case of standing up for your principles.

  25. Peter Koroly says:

    Congratulation for publishing this article. Now you should also publish the picture of the Charlie Hebdo cover after all you claim to stand “for free expression”.
    Yale University Press was publishing a book about the Mohammed caricatures but refused to print the caricatures.
    If you are also afraid to publish, then that prooves that dhimitude has already started in the USA and the UK

  26. DavidMWW says:

    This is a great article. But where’s the picture of the Charlie Hebdo cover? That’s what it’s all about, after all. Have you no sense of solidarity with the Republic of Letters?

    Come on, guys. Even the New Humanist has published this one. You’re lagging behind. No more excuses.