The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-15065, in the name of Christian Allard, on Charlie Hebdo. The debate will be concluded without any question being put, and I would be grateful if members who wished to speak could press their request-to-speak buttons now.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament reflects on the events that took place in Paris on 7 January 2015 at the Charlie Hebdo offices; remembers the journalists, the police officer and others who fell victim to the attack; recognises the tragedy as an attack on the right of free speech; remembers the coming together of French communities in France, across the world and Scotland in Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh, and considers that the people in Scotland joined them and that all MSPs stood shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with the people of France in their time of need at First Minister’s Questions.
12:34
First of all, I thank all the MSPs who signed my motion, all those who have stayed behind this afternoon to listen to the debate and, of course, all those who stood shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with the people of France in their time of need at First Minister’s question time a year ago.
It is time for Parliament to reflect on the events that took place on 7 January 2015 at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris. We remember today the journalists—and I call them journalists, because cartoonists are journalists as much as they are artists—the police officers and others who fell victim to what was an attack on the right of free speech. The following day, more people died in a Jewish supermarket in Paris.
I understand that many terrorist attacks across the world do not get the same attention in our media or in Parliament and that, despite the fact that some of them claim many more victims, they often go unreported. However, the attack on freedom of expression that day brought together French communities not only in France as never before but across the world and, indeed, across Scotland. It happened in Aberdeen, where I remember the French community coming together with a lot of Scottish friends, in Glasgow in the rain—I have seen the pictures—and in the capital, Edinburgh.
France has a great love not only of the work of cartoonists but of politics—in fact, they go very well together—and that explains the overwhelming reaction of the people in France on the day of the attack. Over there, cartoonists are celebrities, invited on to chat shows and news programmes, listened to, read and appreciated by all. This day—today—must be about them and about cartoonists being free to work in France and across the world.
A victim of the attack was Cabu, who was, of course, one of France’s most popular artists, journalists and cartoonists. He served in the French military during the Algerian war—France’s own Vietnam war—but that did not stop him drawing. He drew cartoons for the army magazine Bled and other publications such as Pilote. When I was young, I was a great fan of Pilote, where no less than the father of Astérix, René Goscinny, first employed Cabu. I know how much Astérix is loved in Scotland; in The National, for example, you can find him speaking the mother tongue, and it is great to see him crossing borders.
In 1960, Cabu co-founded Hara-Kiri magazine. What a name! The magazine did, indeed, commit hara-kiri by getting banned, only to be replaced the following day by Charlie Hebdo. A year before the attack, we had lost another one of the magazine’s founders, the cartoonist Cavanna, who was a great hero of mine. Like Charlie Hebdo, Hara-Kiri respected nothing; as Cavanna explained, “We respect nothing, because nothing is respectable.” Let us be clear: these magazines are outrageous, provoking and crude, sometimes obscene. It is very clear that they do not appeal to everyone’s taste, and they are certainly not for everyone.
Another victim on that day was 80-year-old Wolinski, who, like Cavanna, was from an immigrant family. He was born in Tunisia to Jewish parents, and drawing cartoons was his life; the drawings were very political but also very erotic, and were perfect for a publication such as Charlie Hebdo. Nevertheless, in 2005, he was recognised nationally and awarded France’s highest decoration, the Légion d’honneur. Another victim, Bernard Verlhac—or Tignous, as he was known—had his work published in many other popular magazines that I very often used to buy when I was young, such as Fluide Glacial. It should come as no surprise to anyone that Tignous was a member of Cartooning for Peace.
Many more died that day at the Charlie Hebdo offices: Philippe Honoré, another cartoonist; two columnists, Bernard Maris and Elsa Cayat; a copy editor, Mustapha Ourrad; and two more people who happened to be in those offices at the time, Michel Renaud and Frédéric Boisseau. The editor, Stéphane Charbonnier, or Charb as he was known, also died that day despite being under police protection. That is how his bodyguard, police officer Franck Brinsolaro lost his life. Another victim was Ahmed Merabet, the policeman who opened fire on the terrorists. His brother said later that Ahmed was Muslim and very proud of being a police officer and defending the values of the French Republic.
At this point, I would like to strongly state that the attack, like many other terrorist attacks in the past, had nothing to do with religion. It was about power. It was about men wanting power. It always is.
A year on, we are still asking how best we can respond to terror. Charlie Hebdo has given us the best response that we can get to this attack on free speech. It has kept on doing what it was doing before—being outrageous, mocking and provoking us all, and showing no respect to anyone because none of us is respectable.
In the aftermath, the clear message came from people—not from politicians or the media—that an attack on our journalists, on our cartoonists, is more than an attack on free speech. It is an attack on us all. That is why we must not change any of our laws to restrict free speech or our freedom of expression. We do not need to like or even buy Charlie Hebdo, but we need to ensure that it has the right to be published.
Cartoonists are also taking a bigger place in politics here, from Steve Bell to Greg Moodie. We might not always agree with them, but we need to ensure that their drawings are seen. Let us make today, 7 January, a day to celebrate cartoonists across the world. After this debate, the cross-party group on France will meet in committee room 4 to have a discussion on the subject led by Scottish cartoonist Terry Anderson, who is in the gallery, from Cartoonists Rights Network International.
Let us ensure that we keep intact our freedom of expression. I finish with the words of another journalist, Antoine Leiris, who wrote an open letter to the terrorists who killed his wife in the atrocity at the Bataclan concert hall in Paris last November. He wrote:
“no, I will not give you the satisfaction of hating you.”
Today, let us celebrate cartoonists across the world.
Merci beaucoup. Thank you.
12:42
I congratulate Christian Allard on securing this debate. I hope that I managed to sign his motion. I tried to check, but there is some peculiarity of the portal that means that we can see only the past seven days of motions that have been submitted. I am not sure what has gone wrong with that.
It does not seem like a year since members of this Parliament and indeed people across Europe and beyond were declaring “Je suis Charlie” to express our solidarity with the 17 people who were murdered, including journalists working at the Charlie Hebdo offices and in the attack on a Jewish supermarket. None of us would have expected then that, just 11 months later, Paris and its people would again be the victims of appalling acts of terrorism, or that on this occasion 130 people would be left dead.
As Christian Allard said, the taking of life through acts of terrorism is appalling whatever part of the world it occurs in, but there is something about it occurring in a city that one knows that really brings home the horror of the atrocity. I know Paris quite well. When I was a child, my parents had a good friend in Nogent-sur-Marne and I first visited the city at the age of eight. It seems almost unbelievable that the city should have been subjected to terrorist atrocity twice in 2015.
Monsieur Allard submitted his motion in order to champion the cause of free speech. That is a topical discussion, because there is a lot of debate about whether Donald Trump should be banned from the United Kingdom because of his hateful comments about banning Muslims from the United States. I am sure that, if not all, certainly the vast majority of members of this Parliament hope that Mr Trump gets nowhere near the White House.
The right to free speech, of course, is not absolute. There is a balance point beyond which someone’s right to express their opinion will compromise the safety or human rights of others. Where that balance point falls is not always easy to judge.
Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine, so I want to use my short contribution to highlight the importance of satire, particularly in political life.
Christian Allard talked about the role of cartoonists. These days, the word “cartoon” tends to be associated with children’s entertainment, but cartoons have a much longer and more serious history than Mickey Mouse and Tom and Jerry. For centuries, cartoons in Europe have been a medium for political comment and satire. My history textbook at school was illustrated by cartoons depicting Bonaparte and Wellington, Charles James Fox and William Pitt the Younger, and Gladstone and Disraeli. These days, some of those cartoons would be considered racially offensive; that would certainly apply to their depictions of Disraeli. Others were highly offensive towards the Scots and the Irish, or towards people from Africa. However, those cartoons give a real insight into the way in which issues were perceived at the time. Although our attitudes towards what is acceptable or offensive change over time and are affected by our increasing multicultural aspiration, satire—whether using the medium of cartoons, television or radio and so on—remains important, entertaining and illustrative of views and perceptions.
During the 1980s and 1990s, I was a great fan of the TV programme “Spitting Image”. As many people know, it was a satirical puppet show that poked fun at politicians, celebrities and the royal family, which at the time was quite novel. Some people were offended by the programme, particularly by its depiction of the royal family, but many of us found it highly entertaining. It was also a pertinent commentary on the social and political issues of the time. I sometimes wonder what its content might have been if the show had not been cancelled in 1996 and Messrs Fluck, Law and Lambie-Nairn had decided to interpret the activities of this legislature.
Celebrities and senior politicians receive a lot of publicity and can therefore overestimate their importance in the great scheme of things. Satire, through cartoons or other media, is—to slightly misquote Robert Burns—a gift that allows them to see how others see them. It enables us all to laugh—at ourselves, our leaders and the people we admire—and brings them and all of us down to earth. Long live satire.
12:47
Je m’appelle Charles, mais aujourd’hui et tous les jours, je suis Charlie.
I thank Christian Allard for bringing the debate to the chamber on this anniversary. Last night, I watched a very strong documentary about Charlie Hebdo and subsequent terror adventures in France. It was extremely overwhelming.
Charlie Hebdo magazine was first published in 1970 and ceased publication in 1981. It was resurrected in 1992 and has been published weekly since. Like many good satirical cartoon publications, the magazine offers a refreshing and different angle on issues of the day, embracing humour, provoking thought and employing satire, all wrapped in a parcel of creativity.
On its website, Charlie Hebdo says that it defends
“Secularism pure and simple ... a society free of racism but not segmented into ethnic groups ... universalism without crying peace doves ... and cultural diversity without snobs.”
Like fellow cartoonists and writers across the world, Charlie Hebdo magazine, through its cartoons and writing, holds up a mirror to society. It did so until that dark day one year ago, Wednesday 7 January 2015, when men in black tried to smash that mirror. Satire’s job, and the job of cartoonists and reporters, is to do that—to mirror problems and contradictions in society, not solve them. Those three men in black had problems, some caused peradventure by others in their countries and perceived as an attack on a developing but closed secular society.
The state of political satire in an open society reflects the tolerance—or semi-tolerance—that defines it. Less open societies shun criticism, overt as it sometimes is. As we see in cartoons daily, that is especially the case with pictorial criticism. So it was with Charlie Hebdo on that particular dark day, but not for the first time. It has suffered two attacks, the first of which was in 2011, and then of course there was the one in 2015, when 12 people died. Today and every day, we shall remember them.
Harold Rosenberg, an American philosopher, said that satire and irony are regarded as the most effective source to develop a society and to understand a society. Once we have resolved the pain and the conflicts that exist in societies and that spawn terrorism—as we will—perhaps even then satire in the form of cartoons will be an even bigger vehicle to debunk the leading figures in politics, religion and other pseudo realms of power. It was no coincidence that, recently, respect for that openness was, for example, depicted by the flying of flags in Glasgow and cities across Scotland and the world. That was described at the time as a challenge to a brutal attack on democracy and freedom of expression.
It is a truism—it always has been—that the pen is mightier than the sword, in word, drawings and pictures. That is the neutralisation of terrorism against the Charlie Hebdos of the world. The minds and hearts of those who wish to change others’ minds via the barrel of a gun will find ultimately that that barrel has a pen stuck in it. The greatest honour that we can pay to those who have lost their lives to intolerance is to eschew the division of communities along narrow cultural or religious lines and support the right of satire and its vanguard of cartoonists and to pursue the creation of societies that allow and encourage debate and diversity. May their pens never run dry.
12:51
I congratulate Christian Allard on securing time in Parliament for this important debate.
One year ago, on the seventh day of a new year, Paris, the city of light, was darkened by a fearful atrocity. The first physical target of the attack was the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. The brutal murder of 11 journalists and one policeman, as he lay unarmed and wounded on the pavement, shocked the world. It was followed by another atrocity at a Hypercacher in another part of the Île-de-France, where four more innocent people fell victim to the lone gunman Coulibaly, who claimed to be working in tandem with the Charlie Hebdo assailants, Chérif and Saïd Kouachi.
The physical attack on Charlie Hebdo symbolised an attack on the core freedoms that we used to take for granted: freedom of speech and the right to express beliefs without fear or terror. Those fundamental freedoms are the basis of our western European culture. They are a guard against tyranny and we have seen only too clearly what can happen when tyrants such as Hitler and Stalin throttle that process: mass murder, holocaust, untold terror and mayhem.
The attackers, who were members of al-Qa’ida, ultimately failed in their aims because of the huge groundswell of outrage, first among the people of France and then elsewhere. The “Je suis Charlie” campaign identified that groundswell with the innocents who had died and, I hope, proved that the pen is still mightier than the sword. However, those shocking events must impress on us how fragile are those special freedoms and the importance of protecting the decent values that are central to our democracy and our way of life, as well as the need to value and protect those who espouse them.
Tyrants and terrorists alike in many of the most despicable regimes fear journalists, cartoonists, musicians and film-makers for exposing them for what they are. Satire is a most effective tool in eroding pedestals. Laughter is poison to a tyrant.
Let us remember the anger that Hitler felt when he was lampooned in Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator”. The Marx brothers’ film about Freedonia was in the same vein, as was, more recently, “The Interview”, which depicts events in North Korea.
I grew up in the United Kingdom and have been aware of the value of satire in lampooning politicians and other leaders through programmes such as “That Was the Week That Was” and “Spitting Image” and long-established magazines such Punch and Private Eye. Even before that, in the 19th century, George Cruikshank frequently drew George IV in a very unflattering light.
Many—especially politicos—may not like satirists, but they are brave people who are on the front line when it comes to challenging tyranny, and they run the risk of revenge attacks, especially by fanatics. We must appreciate their courage, mourn their loss and support their replacement as bastions of our free world order.
The Charlie Hebdo atrocity especially highlights the dangers that are faced by journalists across the world. It takes great bravery to stand up and be counted and to tell the truth, and that has never been more important than now, in an era that is seeing a decline in freedoms and an increase in terrorism. Unfortunately, it is likely that there will be further atrocities and massacres.
Christian Allard rightly remembers that the people of Scotland and all MSPs stood shoulder to shoulder following the massacre. All of us must continue to behave in that way, with courage in the face of a dark threat to freedom, decency and a way of life to which countless people all over the world aspire.
12:56
I thank Christian Allard for securing the debate and for an excellent speech, and I thank all members who have contributed to a very thoughtful reflection on the horrific attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris.
A year ago, a total of 17 people were killed in three days of attacks, which also targeted a Jewish supermarket and police. Since the attacks in January last year, there have been a number of other incidents, in February, April, June and August. Finally, 129 people were murdered in November.
The offices of Charlie Hebdo had already been firebombed in 2011, and other magazine offices in Europe had been threatened, but the attack in Paris in January last year shocked the world. Within hours of the shootings, the “Je suis Charlie” hashtag went viral and rallied millions behind the plight of free speech and opposition to brutal killings. The horrific crimes prompted an unprecedented showing of solidarity, with demonstrations and vigils being held around the world.
On 11 January, about 2 million people, including more than 40 world leaders, met in Paris for a rally of national unity, and about 3.7 million people joined demonstrations across France.
In Scotland, the First Minister spoke to the French consul general after the attacks and wrote to President Hollande to convey Scotland’s condolences to and solidarity with the French people. She made a statement during First Minister’s question time, and flags flew at half-mast on Scottish Government premises and at Parliament. Rallies were held in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow. I signed the book of condolence at the French consulate in Edinburgh and attended and spoke at an event outside the French consulate that was organised by the French community.
With today’s debate, we signal that we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of France, united in our condemnation of the atrocities. We are deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life, but at the same time we are absolutely steadfast in our defence of the fundamental freedoms that we all cherish so much.
The attacks were intended to spread terror and to drive a wedge into communities and societies, but the response has achieved the opposite of what the terrorists intended. In the aftermath of the attacks, the Scottish Government has made it clear that we stand together with Muslim communities in expressing our condemnation. Following the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the Scottish Arab Federation issued a statement in which it publicly declared its condemnation of the terrorist act. It highlighted that the vast majority of Muslims were horrified and sickened by the attacks, and that Islam as a religion advocates tolerance and freedom of belief. Furthermore, it points to the fact that Muslims and other ethnic minority groups are very concerned about the rise of resentment against immigrants in many European countries.
The final section of the Scottish Arab Federation’s statement says:
“In order to eradicate terrorism, the fight against it must not be confined to security and military measures, but should include political, socio-economic, ideological and cultural factors. Mutual understanding is essential to build confidence and avoid unreasonable behaviour. Constructive communication helps to overcome prejudice and slanted media reporting; and establishing dialogue through robust channels will go a long way towards defusing tension and maintaining a peaceful and calm existence for all.”
Today’s debate has echoed many of those sentiments, and
“a peaceful and calm existence for all”
is a cornerstone of our diverse and multicultural society.
Terrorists want to undermine the values that we share and they aim to damage community relations. As Christian Allard pointed out, it is clear that terrorism is about propagation of fear and provocation of hate. An important challenge for us is to work towards creating cohesive and resilient communities within which terrorist messages will not resonate.
With this debate we reaffirm Parliament’s commitment to a modern and inclusive Scotland that protects, respects and realises internationally recognised human rights principles. The assault on the Charlie Hebdo offices was an act of terrorism and an attack on freedom of speech. Benjamin Franklin said:
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
The principle of freedom of expression is a centrepiece of the European convention on human rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It was a fundamental feature of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted in 1948 in response to the conflict and catastrophe that the dictatorships of the 1930s brought about.
The power of caricature and satire has long been recognised—it was understood in ancient Greece and Rome—and is still feared by tyrants and dictators. Amnesty International’s current write for rights campaign highlights the case of political cartoonist Zulkiflee Anwar Ulhaque—also known as Zunar—who is facing a long prison sentence in Malaysia for “seditious” cartoons. Such cartoons exist to highlight injustice and to make the case for change through challenge and ridicule. They can sometimes be hurtful as well as thought-provoking, but in a modern democracy such as Scotland there is more than ample room for legitimate commentary through the medium of cartoons and caricature. Those who seek to influence the views and opinions of others in our society need to accept that their own views are also open to challenge. Compliant and reverential media are not compatible with modern democracy; democracies thrive because of challenge through freedom of expression.
Elaine Murray talked about the historical context of political satire and cartoons and Chic Brodie spoke eloquently about the modern context and the relationship between democracy, satire and the power of the pen. Jamie McGrigor reminded us of the importance of the freedoms that we value, and that we cannot and should not take them for granted.
Of course, in a respectful democratic society in which human rights are valued, there are limits to the right to express views that challenge and provoke. Giving of gratuitous offence is not a right, and satirical attacks that are motivated by hatred and prejudice step over the line of what is acceptable. Indeed, international treaties, including the ECHR, recognise that the exercise of freedom of expression brings with it duties and responsibilities—not the least of which is the obligation to respect the rights of other people, including their right to hold views with which we may fundamentally disagree.
I want to refer to the motto that appears on the coat of arms of the city of Paris, which shows a ship at sea. The motto—I will have to reflect on my higher Latin—is “Fluctuat nec mergitur”, which translates as:
“she is shaken by the waves but does not sink”.
That centuries-old motto has had a surge in popularity and is used in social media as a symbol of Paris’s resistance in the face of terrorism. Although we were all shaken by the terrible events in Paris, we continue to stand united with France in the fight against terrorism.
13:04 Meeting suspended.