Home By Marquel Charlie Clouseau

Charlie Clouseau

Marquel, TPVs NYTimes French Free Speech correspondent, was moping around the office, depressed about the poor response to his first movie review.

“Tedious,” they said.

They were right, but did that mean it was wrong not to see the movie before writing a review? No, he was convinced it was his writing not his method–which assured that his review wouldn’t be prejudiced by anything he saw in the movie itself. Depressed, he turned to the Times and saw this story: French Police Question Boy, 8, After Remarks on Paris Attacks.

The authorities said the boy was questioned after he refused to observe a minute of silence for victims and later defended the men who attacked the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

Now, wasn’t this something? Everybody suis Charlie for free speech, and now the French are forcing people not only not to wear certain things, but they have to mourn the deaths, whether mournful or not, and even sing the Marseillaise!

Marquel thought that was going too far. Was this free speech or is it really Islamaphobia? Marquel chose the latter. And he was sad. What’s going on with the French? Do they know what freedom is? Isn’t it at least to refuse to stand up for a moment of silence? The French are teaching their children authoritarianism, not freedom. Liberté, Fraternité, Égalité, et Silence. Not very revolutionary.

Marquel got in touch with the flic and the magistrate who cornered this poor boy and harassed him over his beliefs, certainly acquired from his family.

“What is the point of forcing this boy to be silent for 60 seconds when he isn’t sorry?” I asked.

“We believe that moment of silence will prevent him from becoming a terrorist,” said the policeman.

“How does that work?” I asked.
“A terrorist cannot attack or bomb silently. They must shout ‘Allah Achbar’ just before attacking. They always do. So we are teaching them silence. Silence, no terrorism. Shouting, terrorism.” he said.
“Well what about singing the Marseillaise? How does that advance society if it is insincere and forced?” I asked.
The magistrate interrupted, saying, “It is our national anthem. Surely it has to be learned and sung.”
“Learned, possibly, but why sung?” I asked.
The flic took that one. “First when you’re singing you can’t shout Allah Achbar. And when you’re singing Le Marseillaise, it’s impossible.” He said. “Prevents terrorism.”
“Doesn’t that presuppose that a group of terrorist are going to enter their target, say Charlie Hebdo offices, singing the hymne nationale? How likely is that?” I asked.
“We are dealing in probabilities,” said the magistrate, “not certainties or likelihoods.”
“What about this guy you arrested simply for screaming, just as he passed a police station, that he supports the terrorists? Isn’t that classic freedom of speech? Doesn’t the Marseillaise say something about, ‘Contre nous de la tyrannie,’ and isn’t this a bit tyrannical to punish people for what they say not what they do? Isn’t this exactly the lesson of Charlie Hebdo, that people should be allowed to say offensive things?” I asked.
“Aha!” Exclaimed the flic. “It is so obvious. If that man had been silent for sixty seconds he would not be confined now. If he had been singing the Marseillaise, he would be a free man.”
“I don’t know,” I said, “I don’t know how free he would be. Free to be ordered to shut up. Free to be forced to sing a martial song even if he’s a pacifist. You are all French. Don’t you believe in freedom?”
“We believe in it fiercely. We can’t always allow it to take over,” said both together.
“I understand. Freedom does have a tendency to take over, if you let it.” I noted.
They both nodded in agreement. We all went out for café et croissants.
***
By Marquel: Charlie Clouseau

7 COMMENTS

  1. Marquel, this is complicated. The Times says that the boy told the teacher:

    ‘We must kill the French. I am with the terrorists. Muslims have done well. The journalists deserved to die,’
    Then, the father came to school and continued on the same note. I do not know who those people are doing in France, but they seem to be there against their will.

  2. I don’t see the complication. It’s an eight year old boy, unarmed, bombless. This is exactly the kind of speech that needs protection. We’ve had that speech protected in the US for over sixty years since the supreme court struck down the Smith act. The court said speech advocating violence is protected speech. And they emphasized that uncomfortable speech is what is protected and that if only comfortable speech was protected you wouldn’t need the first amendment. Simple, not complicated. Of course I believe movie reviews shouldn’t be compromised by seeing the movie.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.