CYRILLE CARTIER: Charlie Hebdo je otet

Ubrzo nakon napada Charlie je bačen u arenu, pretvoren u simbol za objavljivanje u medijima: bivši francuski predsjednik nazvao ga je “rat” protiv “civilizacije”. Figure su postavljene. Oni koji su na strani “civilizacije”, “Charliji”, i oni koji su na strani “barbarstva”, “teroristi”.

(AUTOR: CYRILLE CARTIER – autograf.hr)

 

Ova opasna jeka događaja 11. rujna nabija vam prst u lice: ”S nama ili protiv nas”. Intelektualci, pisci, arbitri kulture iskoristili su jezik svojih predrasuda da osude druge smrtonosne predrasude. Vladavina straha ne poznaje nijanse sive. Čak i oni koji se ne slažu sa Charlijevim karikaturama proroka Muhameda potaknuti su da zavijore Charlijevu zastavu kako bi pokazali solidarnost protiv terorista. “Je ne suis pas Charlie” (Ja nisam Charlie) postaje uvreda naciji.

 

Za 4 milijuna ljudi koji su krenuli ulicama 11. siječnja emocije su bile uzburkane. Iz daleka, prilijepljena za ekran s vijestima i za internet, i ja sam bila preplavljena. Ipak, nisam mogla izbjeći a da ne primijetim kako se zbunjenost pomiješala s ponosom. Strah se isprepleo s optimizmom dok su raznovrsni glasovi pokušavali označiti jedinstvo u osudi brutalnih ubojstava i u želji da su osnaže za neku “bolju” Francusku. Polako se šuljala neka nemirna slutnja i strah od tog spektakla i sve do sada nastavila je rasti ne ostavljajući me na miru.

Nije to samo nelagodnost zbog lijepljenja krivice i stvarnih posljedica za islam i svakog za kog će se pretpostavljati da je musliman zbog marame, brade, sjevernoafričkog ili bliskoistočnog izgleda (eto, i u Hrvatskoj moj partner koji nosi dulju bradu ponekad je posprdno provociran na ulici – “džihadist” – bez obzira na to što je Balkanac i nije musliman). Nije to samo nelagoda zbog mogućnosti novih napada.

 

Proganja me osjećaj straha jer moćnici koji donose odluke udaraju u ratne bubnjeve i manipuliraju gomilom onemogućavajući nam bistar pogled kroz maglu takvog političkog usmjerenja.

 

U međuvremenu mediji ne štede tintu i programske minute u neproporcionalnom izvještavanju o Charlieju u usporedbi sa drugim događajima i vijestima. Ranije taj tjedan u Nigeriji Boko Haram ubija 2000 ljudi, a auto-bomba u Jemenu 37 ljudi baš na isti dan. Ipak, oči svijeta gledaju samo Francusku i moćnici dolaze pred reflektore da postanu Charlie.

 

Tko su svi ti “Je suis Charlie”?  Da li to znači isto za Benjamina Netanyahua i za Maleka Merabeta?

 

Izraelski predsjednik vlade preuzeo je Charlieja da izgradi još više zidova i da pozove francuske Židove na egzodus u obećanu zemlju. Brat policajca koji je ubijen ispred ureda časopisa Charlie Hebdo osjetio je potrebu da podsjeti ljude kako je islam religija mira i ljubavi, a da su njegova brata, Francuza i muslimana, ubili lažni muslimani.

 

Luz, autor najnovije naslovnice časopisa Charlie Hebdo, nakon napada odbija simbolizam, dok ga bivši predsjednik vlade Nikolas Sarkozy oblači kao ugodan kaput. Karikaturist koji je igrom slučaja preživio napad kaže kako su on i njegovi drugovi crtali karikature da nasmiju ljude, ponukaju ih na razmišljanja i preispitavanje vlastitih religijskih, političkih i društvenih simbola. Sarkozijev “Charlie” propisuje pojačanu kontrolu, deportacije i ograničenja za imigrante.

 

Nakon marša još jedan “Charlie”, britanski predsjednik vlade David Cameron, obećao je još više nadzora ako bude ponovo izabran. Gotovo nečujnim glasom suprotstavlja mu se Marie, učiteljica u srednjoj školi u pariškom predgrađu Seine-Saint-Denise, koja se gnuša stigmatizacije i boji posljedica za svoje učenike. Potpisujući se jedino svojim prvim imenom na blogu, ta učiteljica radi u jednom od najsiromašnijih predgrađa Pariza s najvećom stopom kriminaliteta.

U studenom prošle godine u tom predgrađu učitelji i roditelji zajedno su protestirali zbog premalih sredstava za lokalne škole. Tko će sad dobiti sredstva: David za nadziranje ili Marie za školovanje?

 

Charlie: Uzmi plavu pilulu i priča tu završava

 

Jedan od CNN-ovih eksperata za nacionalnu sigurnost i obavještajne službe govorio je o navodnom propustu francuskih sigurnosnih službi da spriječe “najsmrtonosniji napad u zadnjem desetljeću u Europi”. Kako smo lagano dobili amneziju i zaboravili Breivikov masakr 2011. u kojem je ubijeno 77 većinom mladih ljudi. Stručnjaci su raspravljali o vezama Francuske braće s Al Qaidom u Jemenu, a nisu analizirali Breivikove veze sa desničarskim kršćanskim organizacijama u Velikoj Britaniji.

 

Breivik Kouachi, lice i naličje istog novčića: politički motivirane ubojice s vezama sa organizacijama izvan vlastite zemlje. Jedan je naširoko predstavljan kao usamljeni luđak (iako ga je sudac proglasio uračunljivim), dok su drugi, iako je njihovo mentalno zdravlje dovođeno u pitanje, portretirani kao dio međunarodne terorističke organizacije.

 

Rezultat je usmjeravanje pažnje na navodnu prijetnju islama “zapadu”, a ne na porast popularnosti ultradesničarskih grupa. Fokusira se na sigurnost i potrebu za vojnom potrošnjom umjesto na reformiranje francuskih institucija i razgrađivanje geta otvorenijom raspravom o diskriminaciji.

 

Breivik Kouachi, jedno te isto, zapaljiv svijet straha, mržnje i netolerancije. Oni su marširali ulicama Njemačke i Pakistana u tisućama, pristupili su Zlatnoj zori u Grčkoj i palili crkve u Nigeru, sad su još zavedeniji u ekstremizam. Naravno, neće svi odmah uzeti oružje i krenuti ubijati, ali koliki će od njih postati “Je suis Breivik” ili ”Je suis Kouachi”?

Emocije su uskuhale i sve su glasniji pozivi da se uvede Patriot Act à la Française. Mnogi su, kao Pascal Boniface, direktor Instituta za međunarodne i strateške odnose (Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques), protiv uvođenja novih drakonskih zakona povrh već postojećih. Postoji li dokaz da je poslije 11. rujna svijet Guantanama i Abu Ghraiba pomogao smanjiti terorizam više nego što je pomogao regrutaciji u radikalizirane, ”protuzapadne”, grupe.

 

Kad još posebno pogledamo ekonomsku situaciju, postavlja se pitanje kako će vlade pojedinih zemalja održavati sigurnosni front dok je srž razloga zbog kojih ljudi podupiru ekstremne grupe u Europi unutar sistema? Francuske institucije neuspješne su i stvaraju marginalizirane, obespravljene i potlačene ljude.

 

Izgubljene priče

 

Osim samog napada, marša i pitanja sigurnosti medijske priče razmatrale su i slobodu govora i mjesto islama u Europi.

 

Kriza slobode govora već je dugo prisutna u Europi i Sjevernoj Americi, piše Teju Cole. Oni koji se usude objelodaniti cijenu drastičnih sigurnosnih mjera nakon 11. rujna i oni koji izvuku utrobu sistema koji počiva na ilegalnim prisluškivanjima i izvanpravnim zatvorima koje CIA upotrebljava u raznim zemljama, zviždači su koji su tretirani kao izdajice. Edward Snowden i Chelsea Manning pokušali su promijeniti sistem koji će sad možda biti osnažen aferom Charlie.

 

U isto vrijeme muslimani širom svijeta pod pritiskom su da se izjasne protiv ovih napada, (iako je većina lidera islamskog svijeta već javno osudila kriminalni čin) i da objasne svoju vjeru pred pitanjem “Treba li kriviti islam?” . Nakon pokolja u Norveškoj da li se ja, bljedolika osoba europskog podrijetla, s mnogim kršćanima u svojoj obitelji moram opravdavati i ispričavati za strahotu? Da li su postojali naslovi po novinama “Treba li kriviti Kršćanstvo?” nakon napada na medicinske ustanove koje su obavljale abortuse u SAD-u?

Alaa Al Aswany dobro je napisala da suštinski problem nije religija, nego njena zloupotreba za provođenje nasilnog čina: “Niti jedna religija nije krvožednija nego ona druga, i ne posjeduje monopol nad nasilnim ekstremizmom. Na taj način i islam može biti vodilja za ljude da prakticiraju toleranciju, ali može biti izvitoperen u sistem koji opravdava terorizam.”

 

Zašto Charlie?

 

Gdje su “Je suis Edwin Chota” (ja sam Edwin Chota) ovoga svijeta? Chota nije bio Francuz, nije ubijen u Francuskoj od ruke francuskih građana. Ubijen je dok su oči svijeta bile uprte u Peru zbog svjetske konferencije Ujedinjenih Naroda o klimatskim promjenama. Ubijen je jer se borio protiv uništavanja šuma, a ubili su ga kriminalci koji ilegalno uništavaju šume u sprezi sa korumpiranim državnim službenicima. On nije bio novinar, ali se borio za pravdu.

 

Ali hipokriti u masovnim medijima zaboravljaju i novinare po svijetu koji su progonjeni ili bivaju ubijeni, a zaslužuju vrlo malo pažnje jer nemaju evropski ili sjevernoamerički pasoš.

 

Moćnici su oteli Charlieja i potopili raznolikost glasova s ulice. Oni upotrebljavaju Charlieja kao svoju mantru za vlastiti ”rat protiv terorizma”, protiv nebuloznog neprijatelja, koji može biti dobiven samo još većim nadzorom, oštrijim zakonima i jačom vojnom silom.

 

Sad je vrijeme za liberté od svih onih koji otimaju žrtve da bi udarali u ratne bubnjeve i podržali ideju sukoba civilizacija. Sad je vrijeme za égalité u raspodijeli naše pažnje i sredstava da ojačamo edukaciju, a ne militarizaciju. Sad je vrijeme za fraternité među Charliejima, Chotama, Ahmedima i Francoisesima da se usaglase i nađu globalno rješenje za trajni mir.

 

(Cyrille Cartier je francuska novinarka i profesorica novinarstva sa hrvatskom i iračkom adresom).

 

Prijevod teksta na engleski jezik:

 

Hijacking Charlie: Peace and diversity among the hostages

 

Within hours of the attack, Charlie was thrown out into the arena as a symbol for the media to broadcast: the former French president called it a “war” on “civilization.” The game was set. Those on the side of “civilization,” the “Charlies,” and those on the side of “barbarism,” the terrorists. Dangerous echoes from 9/11 with a pointed finger in your face: “you’re either with us or against us.” Intellectuals, writers, the arbiters of culture, used the language of one prejudice to condemn the other deadly prejudices. Fear mongering does not accept shades of grey. Even those who have issues with Charlie’s depiction of the prophet Mohamed are encouraged to raise the Charlie banner to show solidarity against the terrorists. A “Je ne suis pas Charlie” becomes an insult to the nation.

 

To the 4 millions who walked the streets on the 11^th of January, emotions ran high. From afar, glued to the news and Internet chatter, I was caught in the wave but it was also easy to see how confusion mixed with pride. Fear mixed with optimism as a plethora of voices took to the streets to signify unity voicing their outrage at the brutal killings and desire to stand strong for a “better” France. But a sense of dread and foreboding unease at the spectacle before me kept growing and hasn’t left me since.

 

It is not just about misplaced blame and the very real repercussions to Islam in general and anyone that is assumed to be Muslim because of a veil, a beard or the appearance of being of North Africa or Middle Eastern descent. (In Croatia, my partner who sports a longish beard has been provocatively called “Jihadi” on the streets even though he is a non-Muslim Balkanite.) It is also not just the possibility of other attacks.

 

I am haunted by a sense of dread of how powerful decision-makers of the world sound the drum of war and manipulate the crowds to impede our ability to see through the fog of political discourse. Meanwhile mainstream media worldwide does not spare ink nor air time in the disproportional coverage of the Charlie affair in relation to other stories—see Boko Haram’s killing of 2,000 in Nigeria in the same week, and the car bomb in Yemen killing 37 on the very same day. But the world has its eyes on France and its leaders went to share in the spotlight and become “Je Suis Charlie.”

 

But who are the “Je Suis Charlie”? Does it mean the same to Benjamin Netanyahu as it does to Malek Merabet?

 

Israel’s prime minister appropriated Charlie to build more walls inviting an exodus of French Jews to settle in Israel. The brother of the policeman killed in front of Charlie Hebdo’s offices felt the need to remind people that Islam is a religion of peace and love, and that his brother was both French and Muslim killed by “false Muslims.”

 

Luz, the author of Charlie Hebdo’s cover after the attack, rejects the symbolism while former president Nicolas Sarkozy wears it. The cartoonist who survived the attacks by a twist of fate, says he and his colleagues drew to get people to laugh, think, reevaluate their religious, political and social symbols. Sarkozy’s “Charlie” prescribes stricter control, deportations and limitations of immigrant populations.

 

After the march, another “Charlie,” United Kingdom’s Prime Minister David Cameron, promised to increase surveillance powers if re-elected. A small whisper in comparison is the voice of Marie, a high school teacher from Seine-Saint-Denis who abhors the stigmatization and fears reprisals toward her students. The teacher, who used only her first name in a blog entry, works in one of the disadvantaged suburbs of Paris with the highest crime rate where teachers and parents protested last November the disproportional lack of resources for the school district. Who will get the resources? David or Marie?

 

Charlie: take a blue pill and the story ends

 

One of CNN’s news shows had specialists on national security and intelligence considering the possible “failure” of the French security apparatus in preventing “the most deadly attack in Europe in a decade.” How amnesiac have we become to forget Breivik’s massacre of 77 people in 2011? The experts discussed the links between the brothers and Al Qaeda cells in Yemen but forgot about Brevik’s links with right wing Christian organizations in Britain.

 

Breivik Kouachi, two faces of the same coin: Politically-motivated killings with links to radical groups beyond their country of citizenship. But one is widely portrayed as a lone wolf madman (though the final ruling judged him sane), the others, though their sanity questioned, pegged as part of international terrorist cells. The result: the focus of attention on so-called Islamic threats to the “West” instead of also drawing proportionate attention to the growing popularity of right-wing groups; the focus on security and military spending instead of reformation of France’s institutions, dissolving of its ghettos and more honest debate about discrimination.

 

Breivik Kouachi, the one and same, a combustible world of intolerance, fear, hate. Those who marched the streets of Germany or Pakistan, join Golden Dawn in Greece or burn churches in Niger, risk getting further lured to the extremes. Though of course not all will take up arms and kill, how many of them will become “Je suis Breivik” and “Je suis Kouachi”?

 

Emotions are high and calls for a Patriot Act à la Française are rampant. But many, including Pascal Boniface, director of  “Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques” (Institute for International and Strategic Relations) warn against creating draconian laws on top of the arsenal of existing ones. Where is the proof, he asks, that the post-9/11 world of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib helped in combatting terrorism more than facilitating the recruitment into radicalized anti-Western groups?

 

Furthermore, especially given the economic situation, how can governments sustain the security front while tackling the heart of the reasons behind the adherence to radicalized groups in Europe? France’s institutions are failing and creating disenfranchised, marginalized, oppressed individuals.

 

Lost Stories

 

The mainstream stories of the week apart from the attack, the march and the questions of security, however, related to the question of freedom of expression, and to Islam and its place in Europe.

 

But as Teju Cole wrote, the crisis of freedom of expression had been well underway in Europe and North America. Those who expose the cost of drastic post-9/11 national security measures and the entrails of a system that often contradicts its doublespeak from illegal phone taps to overseas CIA detention centers, are whistleblowers treated as traitors. Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning sought to change the very system that is now bolstered by the Charlie affair.

 

Muslims all over the world, meanwhile, are pressured to denounce the attacks (despite the fact that some of the most prominent leaders did so publicly), explain their faith and answer the question “Is Islam to Blame?” In the wake of killings in Norway do I, a pale-skinned person of European origin with practicing Christians in my family need to explain and apologize for the horror? Are there headlines asking “Is Christianity to blame?” after attacks on abortion clinics?

 

Alaa Al Aswany wrote that the inherent problem is not religion, but its misappropriation for a violent cause: “No one religion is more bloodthirsty than another, or has a monopoly on violent extremism. Just as Islam can be followed as a humane religion that urges tolerance, so, too, can it be twisted by some into a belief system that justifies terrorism.”

 

Why “Charlie”?

 

Where were the “Je suis Edwin Chota” of the world? Chota was not French, did not die on French territory at the hands of French citizens. But he was murdered while the world was looking at Peru hosting the United Nations climate change conference. He was murdered for fighting deforestation at the hands of illegal loggers working in conjunction with corrupt officials. He was not a journalist but he was fighting for rights.

 

The mass media hypocrisy also forgets other journalists worldwide who continue to face persecution and death but get little attention because they do not have the European or North American ID.

 

Leaders hijacked “Charlie,” drowning out the multitude of diverse voices from the streets, and continue to use “Charlie” as their mantra to bolster their “War on Terrorism,” a nebulous enemy that, they say, can allegedly be won first and foremost through toughened laws, surveillance and military action.

 

It is time for liberté from all who seek to hijack the victims to beat the war drum, and to unravel the rhetoric of the clash of civilizations. It is time for égalité in how we weigh our attention and resources to strengthen education not militarization. It is time for fraternité among the Charlies, Chotas, Ahmeds and Françoises, the multitude of global voices to find solutions for lasting peace.

 

(Cyrille Cartier is a french journalist and professor of journalism living in Croatia and Iraq).