What happens next Where's my refund? Best CD rates this month Shop and save 🤑
MONEY
Charlie Hebdo attack

Rieder: Why 'Charlie Hebdo' deserves free speech award

Rem Rieder
USA TODAY
An early morning commuter walks past a newsstand displaying the new edition of the French satirical paper "Charlie Hebdo" at Gare du Nord train station in Paris on Feb. 25, 2015.

A debate has erupted over the decision by PEN American Center to give its annual Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

It was at the offices of Charlie Hebdo that an assault by Muslim extremists in January left 12 people dead, including the publication's top editor and a number of prominent cartoonists.

Their sin? Publishing images of the prophet Mohammed, which is extremely offensive to many Muslims.

PEN says on its website that for 90 years, its mission has been "to ensure that people everywhere have the freedom to create literature, to convey information and ideas, to express their views and to make it possible for everyone to access the views, ideas and literatures of others."

Cartoonists gunned down for expressing their views sound like worthy recipients of the award.

Not according to six novelists, who announced they were stepping down as literary hosts of PEN's gala dinner in New York City on May 5.

Their beef?

"A hideous crime was committed, but was it a freedom of speech issue for PEN America to be self-righteous about?" Peter Carey, one of the protesting writers, said in an email interview with The New York Times. He said, "All this is complicated by PEN's seeming blindness to the cultural arrogance of the French nation, which does not recognize its moral obligation to a large and disempowered segment of their population."

Another of the dissenting writers, Rachel Kushner, lambasted Charlie Hebdo for its "cultural intolerance" and its embrace of "a kind of forced secular view." (The other protesting writers are Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole and Taiye Selasi.)

Another writer, Deborah Eisenberg, said in a letter to PEN that she found the irreverent newspaper's treatment of the Muslim faith insulting to what she called the "marginalized, impoverished and victimized" Muslim population.

To its credit, PEN is hanging tough. This is a well-deserved award, and the critics are off the mark. Freedom of expression would hardly be a big deal if it were only the freedom to be politically correct, to express opinions that are weak tea, tepid sentiments that everyone can embrace.

And Charlie Hebdo hardly has reserved its fire for the Muslim faith. It sees itself as an equal opportunity offender, and the Catholic church is often on the receiving end of its barbs.

The PEN award, and the fact that Charlie Hebdo has continued to publish after the devastating assault, are critical ways to underscore the notion that it's not OK for violent zealots to impose their will with assault weapons and beheadings, that religious beliefs, no matter how deeply held, confer no mandate to kill what you don't like.

Andrew Solomon, PEN's president, and Suzanne Nossel, its executive director, said in a letter to PEN's board that you hardly have to agree with all of Charlie Hebdo's work to see it as a worthy recipient of a free speech award.

"There is courage in refusing the very idea of forbidden statements, an urgent brilliance in saying what you have been told not to say in order to make it sayable," they wrote.

They said they believe Charlie Hebdo did not aim to insult Muslims, "but rather to reject forcefully the efforts of a small minority to place broad categories of speech off-limits, no matter the purpose, intent or import of the expression."

Solomon told the Times the group had heard little criticism since the award was announced in March, and the numerous other literary hosts were still on board.

Perhaps the most eloquent and trenchant support for the award came from someone who knows a little about threats from zealots: Salman Rushdie, who went into hiding for years in the wake of a fatwa — a religious order for his death — by Iran's then-religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini after the publication of Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses.

"This issue has nothing to do with an oppressed and disadvantaged minority," Rushdie wrote in a letter to PEN. "It has everything to do with the battle against fanatical Islam, which is highly organised, well funded, and which seeks to terrify us all, Muslims as well as non Muslims, into a cowed silence."

Rushdie, a former president of PEN, made clear why it was critical that the organization not back down,

"If PEN as a free speech organization can't defend and celebrate people who have been murdered for drawing pictures, then frankly the organization is not worth the name," he said, adding pointedly, "What I would say to both Peter and Michael and the others is, I hope nobody ever comes after them."

Featured Weekly Ad