On October 16, Samuel Paty, a history teacher, was murdered in France. French President Emanuel Macron called it an “Islamist terrorist attack”. French Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer called it “Islamist terrorism”.
Macron might have forgotten how powerful words can be. He failed to realize how his statement would divide his nation.
On October 18, a day after the controversial remarks about “Islamists” were made, two women of Algerian descents were attacked at the Eiffel Tower.
You would think, after this incident, Macron would do something to remedy the situation. But did he? No.
On October 20, he shut down the Grand Mosque of Pantin. The mosque had published a Facebook post criticizing Samuel Paty for having shared the cartoon of the Prophet.
The French government defended their action, calling the closing of the mosque an act to prevent terrorism, indirectly blaming the mosque as the party inspiring the attack. Apparently, the lauded “freedom of speech” doesn’t apply to Muslims.
As of October 20, dozens of mosques have been shut down.
The discriminatory speech
On October 21, Macron delivered a speech as a tribute to Samuel Paty. Instead of using this opportunity to unite the country, he further divided his nation. Here are some quotes from the speech:
“Tonight, I will have no words to evoke the fight against political, radical Islamism, which leads to terrorism.”
“Samuel Paty was killed because the Islamists want our future and they know that with quiet heroes like him they will never have it.”
“Samuel Paty on Friday became the face of the Republic, of our desire to break down terrorists, to reduce Islamists, to live as a community of free citizens in our country, the face of our determination to understand, to learn, to continue to ‘to teach, to be free, because we will continue, teacher.”
“We will offer all the chances that the Republic owes to all its youth without any discrimination.”
This speech shows how poorly the French Government has reacted to the tragedy. Muslim leaders are rightfully upset about their statement. The way they blamed “Islamists” showed how little they care about minorities in their homeland. Their preferred word, Islamists, shows how strong the Islamophobia is in the country.
One might argue there’s no problem with using the word “Islamists” but would you use the word “Christianists” or “Christian terrorists” to refer to Christian attackers? The answer is no. No media would ever put “Christian” and “terrorists” in the same line.
Extremists come from all religious backgrounds. We’ve read about attacks in other countries, such as Norway, the United States, and New Zealand but none blamed it on the doers’ religion. No one said how those events triggered their “desire to break down terrorists” or “reduce” Christianists.
Discrimination will only exacerbate the problem. Still, they insisted on using the word “Islamist”, linking terrorism solely to Islam. This is a problem that has triggered anger from Muslims worldwide, but the French government doesn’t show any intention of correcting it.
And what about “we/our/us” versus “they/their/them” while, in the same speech, he was talking about how they should not othering others?
Excluding Muslims, disguised under the term “Islamists”, only further divided the nation. He promised no discrimination yet his speech is discriminatory. Where’s his comment about the Eiffel Tower attack? Where’s his reassurance to the Muslim community, who are in fear following the killing of Samuel Paty?
Muslims’ lives and safety are not that important to him. Neither the Muslim community in France or Muslims who live in other countries.
Another quote from the speech:
“We will continue, Professor. And throughout their lives, the hundreds of young men you have trained will exercise that critical thinking that you have taught them. Perhaps some of them will become teachers in their turn. So they will train young citizens. In their turn, they will make the Republic love. They will make our nation, our values, our Europe understood, in a chain of times that will not stop.“
To Macron, it’s about “French values” and the glory of Europe. Screw the Muslims. Some European leaders share his sentiment. This is how you resurrect the ancient enmity towards Muslims in Old Europe. This is how you trigger a deep-seated hatred that might have lied dormant for centuries.
It won’t solve the problem.
This very act of “othering”, this discrimination, will only make things worse.
On October 29, the Nice church attack happened. Three people killed. Macron again blamed it on “Islamist” terrorists. When will this man learn?
On October 31, the Indonesian President Jokowi condemned the French attacks but, at the same time, he criticized Macron’s remarks.
Before Jokowi made his statement, an Islamic youth organization in Indonesia had already issued a call to boycott French products. As of November 4, many stores have joined the action. Other countries, such as Kuwait and Qatar, are also doing a similar thing.
Learning from a woman
The proper use of language is important in crisis management. Failing to understand this is failing to manage the crisis.
Macron could have used non-divisive terminology and used this trying time to unite French citizens, who come from different backgrounds.
The New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Arden, has shown us that unity is the key in managing a crisis. Not with nationalistic machismo but with a gentle, inclusive approach. She didn’t blame the attacker’s religion. She knew it would only divide the country. Instead, she reassured her people that they would be safe in the country. She also included a statement about the diversity that makes up the nation, reminding her people of the richness they are blessed with.
Here are some quotes of her speech in 2019:
“For many, this may not have been the place they were born. In fact, for many, New Zealand was their choice. The place they actively came to, and committed themselves to. The place they were raising their families, where they were part of communities who they loved and who loved them.”
“[We were chosen for this act of violence…] Because we represent diversity, kindness, compassion, a home for those who share our values, refuge for those who need it.”
“We are a proud nation of more than 200 ethnicities, 160 languages. And amongst that diversity we share common values.”
Notice how different she uses “we / our / us” here. She uses these words to unite, not divide, the nation.
Leaders often forgot how strong their influence is. In times of crisis, people seek out words of counsel that will soothe their fear. What kind of peace could come from a reckless speech?
Rights and responsibilities
I praise France’s commitment to defending free speech, but free speech is not an excuse for bullying or discrimination. It should follow one’s moral judgements and be used wisely.
A too lenient definition of “free speech” has proven to be fatal during this pandemic. How many victims have died because they didn’t believe in coronavirus? Fake news circled the internet, encouraging people not to follow the standard Covid-19 self-protection guidelines. People set up drinking parties while ignoring the safe distance rules. How could we curb the virus if people keep breaking the rules? How could we prevent people from breaking the rules if they keep consuming fake news about Covid-19? The only way to do it is by banning that fake news. Now people are complaining that “free speech” is banned.
Freedom of speech is a human right. And with every right, comes responsibility. You can’t have one without the other. Without responsibility, humans will abuse the rights given to them. Doing something that harms others while claiming it to be your right is certainly not right.
Murder is wrong. But saying the murderer’s religion is the cause breaks the trust of many. It puts them on the spot in times where they feel afraid and judged. Using a religion to justify killing is not an “Islam” thing. It existed in Europe before. Those witches didn’t do anything wrong. Do you refer to those women’s killers as “terrorists”? Nope.
But when those men attacked people at the church in Nice, it’s called terrorism.
When those women attacked Muslims at the Eiffel Tower, they’re not terrorists. No, Macron wouldn’t ask them their religion, or any religious affiliation they might have joined in the past, then link the attack to it. This is reserved for Muslims only.
So what makes it valid to link some attacks to a certain religion, but not others? What makes it valid to call one of those attacks “terrorism”, knowing sick-minded people would use it as an excuse to harm others?
All the attacks that happened in France showed that Macron has failed to manage the crisis. If he continues to use his divisive approach, he will only hurt his own people.
Image credit: Felton Davis