Charlie Hebdo ve Cumhuriyetin Sinirlari

New Article Submission

Thank you for your interest in Jadaliyya. We welcome all submissions. The most significant requirement is for Jadaliyya submissions to be analytically compelling and offer a perspective or argument that has not been covered at length either on Jadaliyya or elsewhere. Because of the volume of submissions, well-written pieces are prioritized. Length is flexible, 1000 to 2500 words is the average range. However, we will accept longer pieces. Once submitted, several members of the editorial committee will review your piece and one of them will inform you of the decision.
Author Details
Article Details
Select Countries
Select Keywords
Select Topics
Only RTF, Word, and Pages documents accepted.

Recommended image size: 762x800 px

Location of each image should be indicated in the text of the article via a square bracket caption that includes: (1) a description of the image; (2) the photographer/designer and source of the image. Please note we only use images you as the author have the right to use, which usually means those of your own creation or those published under Creative Commons. Alternatively, you need specific permission from the copyright holder.
Please read the Release Form and provide an electronic signature [your full name] below to confirm that you accept its terms
Required
Hyperlink words in your article if they refer to links on the internet. We encourage more, rather than less, links (try to avoid footnotes—embed them as hyperlinks if possible)

Article added successfully.

Pages Menu BETA
Jan 23, 2015 Turkey
[Image of a demonstration following the attack on the Charlie Hebdo office. Image by canal6hn/Flickr.] [Image of a demonstration following the attack on the Charlie Hebdo office. Image by canal6hn/Flickr.]

Charlie Hebdo ve Cumhuriyetin Sinirlari

By : Arthur Asseraf

Charlie Hebdo and the Borders of the Republic

Charlie Hebdo`s office immediately after the attack on the reviewers " West and democracy "," the core values ​​of the French Republic "against a huge thrill to have doors undertaken against these attacks. This "republican" values ​​in an unquestionably, that came up as a completely pure emanating from the origin. Moreover, Muslims demand forces to show that they share the sacred values ​​of secularism and freedom of expression are also increasingly proliferated. With devastating irony, forced the Muslims, historically made ​​to keep them out, their commitment to these values ​​formed prove is required. The Republic, in fact, has always been a dark side, and today idealized freedoms, excluding the subject of France`s Muslims have emerged in the colonial context.

Financial Times "quoted from Tony Barbera whereas no illusion" North Africa exploitation toxic legacy inherited from the French nobody familiar [to Charlie Hebdo attacked] should not be surprised . " But still hypocritical history of French colonial history and republican values ​​can not explain the situation we are in right now. Here is his analysis of the very phenomenon of colonialism. Other dynamics at stake, what we are faced only with France, who want to convince the West and a narcissism that is related to its value. So at the end of violence nor place nor recognize the border, read the events as an attack against the Republic is equivalent to playing the game of the killer in the end.

Colonial boundaries of freedom of expression

Famous freedom of the press law, which is always the law in force July 29, 1881, at the time when the Republic was proclaimed exclude the Muslim subjects. And colonial laws, including those in Algeria (Article 69), all French citizens while protecting the right to freedom of the press, French citizen of that is to protect the right to freedom of the press`s enormous population of the French colonial empire. Note here is not a simple question, because almost the same time, the French Parliament, he spent the Muslim Algerians are under pressure to get famous by another law. A shorter one month before June 28, 1881 law actually indigénat was a masterpiece of the system. Under the Wild a parallel system of law indigénat management, locals (Indigenes) just were not denied the right to freedom of the press, but also come together in the public domain, or to express their views against the French was not possible. Indigénat formal processes geçiştirerek foresaw a variety of sanctions and penalties.

Act colonized subjects of all religions throughout the empire in Africa and Asia but also leaves outside the context of Algeria is particularly instructive, since it is particularly targeting Muslims. In fact, all non-Muslim citizens of the French in Algeria is under the general rules. Muslims, both domestic and vassal terms (but not always) had come to broadly the same meaning. So "Muslim" was a legal category based on race is not connected to religion. When we see that in many cases the indigenous Muslims converted to Christianity remains even legally, that is not subject to citizen and still indigénat`n apartheid. Colonial Show all absurdity here is what we encountered where the exhibit . [1] famous 1905 law on the separation and the state church is supposedly available in Algeria, but does not apply in the end, because authorities to check if they preached what the mosque imams and the French State of the imams` The officer asks them to remain; this is so much independence.

Law on press freedom leads to an interesting situation; small settler population in 1871, the French citizenship to the Jews of Algeria, for example, develop a lively press life are free to print almost anything they want. Historian Didier Guignard by late 19th century publishing their per capita of the settlers in French Algeria, the period is already too much is not doubtful than the metropolis is productive. [2] However, Muslims are subjected to censorship and official intimidation: newspapers will enjoy for themselves the Algerian Muslims but it is also in a timid way, there is a daily publication in 1962 until independence, interests and early 20th centuries. Arabic are infected with many foreign publications of the Republic of other Muslim fanaticism in the Middle East-Mediterranean region so extreme is censored.

This censorship huge "security" apparatus, as will be called the dispositif of today is a part. Is to prevent a Muslim riots will spread to the general supposedly. Extremely brutal conquest of the then authorities, "a ring that was seized," he afraid to ensure freedom of expression to the Algerian Muslims. Because could örgütlenil against France. In short, the emergence of the French style of press freedom, violence, racism and colonization is associated with manic fear of Islam. Pirüpak was not before the French press freedom in no time. A value at the root of the Republic, "integration" is not the problem, it is just the opposite: It was built to exclude the voices of Muslim French law.

Thinking beyond France

However, the historical context of the early January events does not explain fully. This flashback only made ​​in 1881, the "republican values" was necessary to leave a large kolaycılıkl to idealize those aside. Andrew also extremely problematic Hussey`n book The French Antifade `in colonial Algeria that claimed the contrary there is no direct continuity between January 2015. "Muslim" is no longer a category of French law and freedom of the press in Algeria are free from having their own problems, is an independent country. "Republican values" organizations first meaning of the altered countless challenge given to this issue and the limits set by the 1881 law probably has not entirely disappeared, but expanded. Charlie Hebdo Quasars the brothers behind the attack, Algerian origin, even though they are , was born in Paris and trained in Yemen . Charlie Hebdo kosher in connection with the attack that killed a police officer before taking the market all but pledged Amedy Coulibaly also was born in the south of Paris-Esso and holidays on a regular basis to Crete, to go Dominican Cumuriyet and Malaysia and was playing poker on the internet .  These people individual routes, being radicalized in prison, understanding occurs Savruluş and marginalized, requires an understanding of the current situation is not in a solid form of the colonial past.

These events to argue that the colonial past due jihadis raises the risk to hero-worship as anti-imperialist fighters, this is a serious risk. This person geopolitical crisis they are part of a colonial prism unreadable. If the last year of the Western intervention in Syria as müdahalesizlig Financial also considered to be a dramatic drama that unfolds, how vocabulary can be seen that the resistance of imperialism and open to distortion from any direction. However, Iraqi jihadist movement, Syrian and Tunisian journalists systematically attack that is not possible to forget. Personally journalists in Algeria, the "dark decade" was fitted to systematically target called by Islamists in the nineties. Therefore, we should say that, under attack "French" tradition of freedom of expression is not really well, because all of these events indicated by the context hexagon (France) is exceeded.

Charlie Hebdo `in which journalists can curse of death, but it`s because the French expression is not worth to be superior or unique. Many perpetrators of colonial stereotypes of Muslim fanaticism on the Charlie Hebdo recently underlined that this is a racist and Islamophobic publications. I`m here now, "I Charlie`y I / I`m not Charlie" go into the discussion, because obviously a lot of lively debate on the limits of the freedom of expression and much more qualified than me about it and equipped orators available. At least Charlie Hebdo person reading them if they were, I would not read it. In response I would say that this happened was forcing us to move beyond the colonial thinking. Colonial administrators were Muslims think skulls are different. They had something to adhere to Islam skin and dictated the individual genes and occupied all areas. They borrow the title of telling Naomi Davidson`s latest book, "only Muslims" exceptions and not something else.

Today, many caused by the totalitarian point of view (and often from unexpected directions) we can witness the dangerous manipulation. Manipulation that all Muslims are dangerous and can not be relied on them we could stimulate the extreme right, of course. It could come from the jihadists, they say to us that Muslims are composed of a deadly war opened to the rest of the Muslim world in the final analysis. Trap here is the dual trap of thinking; exploited / exploiter, black / white, collaborative / insurgents. Politics in such a contraction, we need Charlie Hebdo "or" against "or" support "is nothing more than. I say: look at these events in France and the "Arabs" or invaders and to diagnose the arrival in the colonies faced a need to resist with all our might. Ottawa from Damascus, Sydney, and from there to Kabul, during what we in the West are neither East geopolitical turbulence. There is no place where we can escape. The limit or barricades to protect us from terrorism than or monitored.

This massacre was not an attack on freedom of expression in its own dark nook in French. Only one of the many attacks against freedom of expression around the world next door. Journalists in Charlie Hebdo, one way or another, although my hero Alamlarimsan, Iraq, Syria, murdered journalists too in Tunisia and Algeria. In 1993, the Algerian Armed Islamic Group killed by Tahath Djaout I want to remember the words: "I will not think of fear brought bandits cut your heating the priest in front of us; they have closed the road leading to the angel halo. I stood outside the range of your murdered blessing. You nailed on a door for you and view your horizon of hope extinguished the stove; Every tree is a coffin for you. "

NOTES

[1] experts on the issue in the legal terminology separations are now beginning with extraordinary style. But here we are - in the context of the non-specialist audience - we stand on the details. Such distinctions Fevlilik, divorce, etc. As recognized by France because it is related to personal status is related to Islamic law. Time has caused many a fierce debate.

[2] Didi is Guignard, `L`abuse colonial de pouvoir dans l`Algérie, Paris: Presses Universitaires Paris-Ouest, 2010.

[Hilmi was translated into Turkish by the İlksen Mavitan. Text published in the original Jadaliyya to from here you can reach. An earlier version of this translation of Open Radio `was also released.]
Tags
Jan 9, 2012 Lebanon
Maya Mikdashi By :
Maya Mikdashi

American Elections Watch 1: Rick Santorum and The Dangers of Theocracy

One day after returning to the United States after a trip to Lebanon, I watched the latest Republican Presidential Primary Debate. Unsurprisingly, Iran loomed large in questions related to foreign policy. One by one (with the exception of Ron Paul) the candidates repeated President Obama`s demand that Iran not block access to the Strait of Hormuz and allow the shipping of oil across this strategic waterway. Watching them, I was reminded of Israel`s demand that Lebanon not exploit its own water resources in 2001-2002. Israel`s position was basically that Lebanon`s sovereign decisions over the management of Lebanese water resources was a cause for war. In an area where water is increasingly the most valuable resource, Israel could not risk the possibility that its water rich neighbor might disrupt Israel`s ability to access Lebanese water resources through acts of occupation, underground piping, or unmitigated (because the Lebanese government has been negligent in exploiting its own water resources) river flow. In 2012, the United States has adopted a similar attitude towards Iran, even though the legal question of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated and involves international maritime law in addition to Omani and Iranian claims of sovereignty. But still, US posturing towards Iran is reminiscent of Israeli posturing towards Lebanon. It goes something like this: while the US retains the right to impose sanctions on Iran and continuously threaten war over its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran should not dare to assume that it can demand the removal of US warships from its shores and, more importantly, should not dream of retaliating in any way to punitive sanctions imposed on it. One can almost hear Team America`s animated crew breaking into song . . . “America . . . Fuck Yeah!”

During the debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum offered a concise answer as to why a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated and why the United States-the only state in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons, as it did when it dropped them on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- should go to war over this issue. Comparing Iran to other nuclear countries that the United States has learned to “tolerate” and “live with” such as Pakistan and North Korea, Santorum offered this succinct nugget of wisdom: Iran is a theocracy. Coming from a man who has stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, that President Obama is a secular fanatic, that the United States is witnessing a war on religion, and that God designed men and women in order to reproduce and thus marriage should be only procreative (and thus heterosexual and “fertile”), Santorum`s conflation of “theocracy” with “irrationality” seemed odd. But of course, that is not what he was saying. When Santorum said that Iran was a theocracy what he meant is that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and thus its leaders are irrational, violent, and apparently (In Santorum`s eyes) martyrdom junkies. Because Iran is an Islamic theocracy, it cannot be “trusted” by the United States to have nuclear weapons. Apparently, settler colonial states such as Israel (whose claim to “liberal “secularism” is tenuous at best), totalitarian states such as North Korea, or unstable states such as Pakistan (which the United States regularly bombs via drones and that is currently falling apart because, as Santorum stated, it does not know how to behave without a “strong” America) do not cause the same radioactive anxiety. In Santorum`s opinion, a nuclear Iran would not view the cold war logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent. Instead, the nation of Iran would rush to die under American or Israeli nuclear bombs because martyrdom is a religious (not national, Santorum was quick to state, perhaps realizing that martyrdom for nation is an ideal woven into the tapestry of American ideology) imperative. Santorum`s views on Iran can be seen one hour and two minutes into the debate.

When it comes to Islam, religion is scary, violent and irrational, says the American Presidential candidate who is largely running on his “faith based” convictions. This contradiction is not surprising, given that in the United States fundamentalist Christians regularly and without irony cite the danger that American muslims pose-fifth column style- to American secularism. After all, recently Christian fundamentalist groups succeeded in pressuring advertisers to abandon a reality show that (tediously) chronicled the lives of “American Muslims” living in Detroit. The great sin committed by these American Muslims was that they were too damn normal. Instead of plotting to inject sharia law into the United States Constitution, they were busy shopping at mid-western malls. Instead of marrying four women at a time and vacationing at Al-Qaeda training camps in (nuclear, but not troublingly so) Pakistan, these “American Muslims” were eating (halal) hotdogs and worrying about the mortgages on their homes and the rising costs of college tuition. Fundamentalist Christians watched this boring consumer driven normalcy with horror and deduced that it must be a plot to make Islam appear compatible with American secularism. The real aim of the show, these Christian fundamentalists (who Rick Santorum banks on for political and financial support) reasoned, was to make Islam appear “normal” and a viable religious option for American citizens. Thus the reality show “All American Muslim” was revealed to be a sinister attempt at Islamic proselytizing. This in a country where Christian proselytizing is almost unavoidable. From television to subways to doorbell rings to presidential debates to busses to street corners and dinner tables-there is always someone in America who wants to share the “good news” with a stranger. Faced with such a blatant, and common, double standard, we should continue to ask “If Muslim proselytizers threaten our secular paradise, why do Christian proselytizers not threaten our secular paradise?”

As the United States Presidential Elections kick into gear, we can expect the Middle East to take pride of place in questions pertaining to foreign policy. Already, Newt Gingrich who, if you forgot, has a PhD in history, has decided for all of us, once and for all, that the Palestinians alone in this world of nations are an invented people. Palestinians are not only a fraudulent people, Gingrich has taught us, they are terrorists as well. Candidates stumble over each other in a race to come up with more creative ways to pledge America`s undying support for Israel. Iran is the big baddie with much too much facial hair and weird hats. America is held hostage to Muslim and Arab oil, and must become “energy efficient” in order to free itself from the unsavory political relationships that come with such dependancy. Candidates will continue to argue over whether or not President Obama should have or should not have withdrawn US troops from Iraq, but no one will bring up the reality that the US occupation of Iraq is anything but over. But despite the interest that the Middle East will invite in the coming election cycle, there are a few questions that we can confidently assume will not be asked or addressed. Here are a few predictions. We welcome additional questions from readers.

Question: What is the difference between Christian Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism? Which is the greater “threat” to American secularism, and why?

Question: The United States` strongest Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, an Islamic theocracy and authoritarian monarchy which (falsely) cites Islamic law to prohibit women from driving cars, voting, but has recently (yay!) allowed women to sell underwear to other women. In addition, Saudi Arabia has been fanning the flames of sectarianism across the region, is the main center of financial and moral support for Al-Qaeda and is studying ways to “obtain” (the Saudi way, just buy it) a nuclear weapon-all as part and parcel of a not so cold war with Iran. Given these facts, how do you respond to critics that doubt the United States` stated goals of promoting democracy, human rights, women`s rights, and “moderate” (whatever that is) Islam?

Question: Israel has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them in the past. True or false?

Question: How are Rick Santorum`s views on homosexuality (or the Christian right`s views more generally) different than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad`s or King Abdullah`s? Can you help us tease out the differences when all three have said that as long as homosexuals do not engage in homosexual sex, it`s all good?

Question: Is the special relationship between the United States and Israel more special because they are both settler colonies, or is something else going on?