Deliberate Controversy or Defiance of Cabal: The Calculated Provocation of Charlie Hebdo Comics

By Deputy Current Affairs Editor Kate O’Hanlon

Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine published weekly in France that features deliberately polemic reports, cartoons and jokes. While they have made a name for themselves by being as controversial as possible, this magazine has incurred an absurd amount of controversy due to their insensitive and at times outrageous handling of news stories that other reporters would write about cautiously. Charlie Hebdo are proponents of what they deem to be “free expression” and secularism. But at what point does free speech become hate speech?

While this publication aims to make headlines for their velitation on a weekly basis, their most egregious comic of the last few months is one of Gisele Pelicot. Ms. Pelicot was drugged and raped by her husband and over 50 other men, he found online, for over a decade. These assaults were recorded by Ms. Pelicot’s husband and discovered following an investigation in late 2020 after he was arrested for recording up a woman's skirt in a supermarket. The cartoon published by Charlie Hebdo depicts the active assault of Ms. Pelicot by multiple men while her husband records with the caption “l’amour ouf… un film de Dominique Pelicot”, which means “crazy love… a film by Dominique Pelicot”. However “l’amour ouf” implies an obsession with something that leads you to forget your own nature and almost forces you to do crazy things for the other person. The choice of words here coupled with the grotesque comic, are strongly indicative of a dehumanizing method of victim blaming on the artist's part.

The vicious satirisation of Ms. Pelicot, who bravely made her trial public in order to make women aware of the warning signs of the abuse she endured, undermined her story and what she aimed to achieve by sharing it. This cartoon, which not only downplayed her plight but also made light of it, has set back women's rights movements in France by making it more difficult for people to come forward and share similar stories of exploitation. While the release of this cartoon is technically an expression of free speech, it ultimately perpetuates a culture of silencing victims.

Ms. Pelicot has stated that she wanted her case handled publically she didn’t “want [victims of sexual assault] to feel ashamed anymore. It's not for us to feel shame–it's for [sexual attackers]," she said. "Above all, I'm expressing my will and determination to change this society." Sexual assault cases in France are usually handled with tight discretion and the stigma surrounding them has made it difficult to have open dialogues which could lead to societal changes such as updating legislation.

Only in 2021 did France introduce a legal age of sexual consent–notably after public outcry following the rape of an 11-year-old schoolgirl by a man who was initially convicted on the lesser charge of sexual assault. Stigma and a lack of social movement leads to even further shame and taboo around these topics which may make it harder for victims to even report what has happened to them. We can see this trend in statistics from the the Institute of Public Policies, which found that just 14% of rape accusations in France lead to formal investigations.

The cartoonists and reporters at Charlie Hebdo surely would have been aware of this political background in France in regards to sexual assault victims. Most have concluded that, even for a deliberately satirical publication, this comic has taken the joke too far with their Gisele Pelicot satire. Sarah Legrain, an MP for the La France Insoumise party of the 16th constituency of Paris wrote that "You have to have fallen really low to rely only on ignoble drawings to exist".

Indeed Charlie Hebdo has fallen out of favour in recent years, especially with the younger generations. While it could be argued that their intentional political goading may be a method of spreading awareness about contentious issues, the media buzz it generates is not worth hindering more constructive forms of free speech like creating a space for victims to speak up. Does Charlie Hebdo comics add anything meaningful or insightful to dialogue surrounding controversial issues or does it just opt to degrade those involved?

Seeing as this magazine built their reputation on scandal, it comes as no surprise that this isn’t their first time coming up in media headlines as being a controversial outlet. However in some ways this is the first time that we have seen Charlie Hebdo actively ridicule the free speech of others. Even following the fatal attack on their offices in 2015 following their depiction of the prophet Muhammad in one of their cartoons Charlie Hebdo maintained their “commitment to the defense of the right to freedom of expression, even when that right is being used to express views that some may consider offensive”.

Indeed Charlie Hebdo articles and illustrations can be viewed as a symbol of free speech and artistic expression that stand against censorship and oppression. By satirizing political, religious, and social issues that are often considered too dangerous to mock due to the media's obsession with ‘cancel culture’, this publication encourages critical thinking and allows for a more open dialogue regarding sensitive or taboo topics. Its cartoons are especially accessible and force reflection on uncomfortable truths within society. Charlie Hebdo's commitment to defending freedom of expression, even in the face of violence and threats, is a testament to the resilience of democratic values. While modern media outlets and governments alike use censorship to silence dissent, the magazine reminds us of the importance of free speech in the face of 21st century media control.

While it would be fundamentally wrong to advocate for the censorship of Charlie Hebdo, the outrage and disgust at some of the articles and cartoons they decide to publish is part of the dialogue that they so actively encourage. Perhaps the strong reactions to such degrading caricatures of various social issues signals a lack of apathy which may spur on activism and further social change in the future.