What the UK national newspapers said about the Charlie Hebdo attack | Media | The GuardianWhat the UK national newspapers said about the Charlie Hebdo attack | Media | The Guardian










Close






Skip to main content

 









sign in








subscribe









search




jobs






more


from the guardian:


jobs


change edition:



switch to the UK edition


switch to the AU edition







US edition




switch to the UK edition




switch to the Australia edition













The Guardian


Winner of the Pulitzer prize











home


›
media










home




US




world




opinion




sports




soccer




tech




arts




lifestyle




fashion




business




money




travel




environment







browse all sections
close







 











Media


Greenslade



What the UK national newspapers said about the Charlie Hebdo attack









British press is united in outrage at the murderous attack on a French magazine
Live blog: get the latest on the arrest of suspects

















How the UK national papers covered the Charlie Hebdo attack. Photograph: Mark Smith/The Guardian




Roy Greenslade


Thursday 8 January 2015 03.37 EST







Share on Facebook







Share on Twitter







Share via Email







Share on LinkedIn







Share on Google+







Share on WhatsApp
















Britain’s national press is united in outrage. Their front page headlines show that all view the murder of 10 journalists and two police officers at the offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris in similar terms. 
‘Attack on freedom’ (The Times). ‘The war on freedom’ (Daily Mail). ‘War on freedom’ (Daily Telegraph). ‘An assault on democracy’ (The Guardian). A cartoon in the Independent, showing a pen dipped in blood with a raised finger, indicates defiance. 
Others simply reflect the nature of the crime: Massacre (Metro). Massacred in minutes (Daily Express). Massacred at work (Daily Star).
The Daily Mirror used a single word, the one chosen by France’s president, Francois Hollande, in his immediate response to the murders: Barbaric. 
Almost all used the same picture, of the wounded police officer lying on the ground and turning to his attacker before he was executed. The Sun ran it with a big headline saying “Non!” followed by a sub-deck saying: “A policeman is murdered in cold blood for defending free speech. This evil in the name if Islam MUST STOP”.
The Financial Times, in a rare departure from its focus on business, also splashed on the story: “France in mourning after 12 killed in magazine attack”. 
Editorials reinforced the messages conveyed by the front pages. Nous sommes tous Charlie, said the Times, calling on the world to “mourn in sympathy, but not in fear”.
Referring to the killers as “maniacs”, it continued: “The gunmen were heard to shout that ‘the Prophet has been avenged’. He has not. He has been shamed. Brave people have been murdered in his name and it is they who should be avenged”.
It quoted Charlie Hebdo’s murdered editor-in-chief, Stéphane Charbonnier, as once observing: “I live under French law … [not] Koranic law”. The Times said of him:

“While he lived he upheld a priceless tradition of broad and often brutal satire, no punches pulled, no prisoners taken. He and his colleagues were equal opportunity offenders. 
Islamists were often their targets precisely because of their unconscionable threats and spurious claim to special status. But so were Catholic clergy, cardinals, the Pope and, for what it’s worth, the British”.

It warned that French nationalists “will be tempted to turn this terrible attack to political advantage”. Instead, it hoped that France would “fight it with unity … We are all Charlie now”.
The Telegraph’s leading article, A terrible price for freedom of speech, defended the right for people to express offensive opinions, but explained that it was a matter for individual editors to decide where to draw the line: 

“To most people brought up in western Europe, such satire is the stuff of living in a free country. But we do not doubt that it is offensive to many Muslims, just as Christian and Jews are affronted if their religions are traduced, even if they do not react in such an extreme way.
Free speech offers latitude but not necessarily license. It does not follow that because many newspapers, such as this one, do not publish cartoons of Mohammed that somehow we have been intimidated into not speaking out. 
Any suggestion that a publication failing to follow Charlie Hebdo’s example is caving into terrorism is absurd: we all make editorial decisions to avoid offending people that have nothing to do with appeasing militant Islamists”.

The Telegraph said France has the largest Muslim population in Europe, “where the tensions are greatest”, partly as a legacy of its colonial past but “also the result of its failure to integrate, and the aggressive secularism of the French state”. 
The Guardian, in arguing that the killers in Paris trained their Kalashnikovs on free speech everywhere, said Charlie Hebdo had been subject to threats since 2006, when it reproduced – with added barbs – the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. It continued:

“Such depictions are, of course, blasphemy to most Muslims, but far from relenting, the editors played double or nothing, going on to produce such provocations as a special issue ‘guest-edited’ by the prophet.
To the devout, including very many who are as peace-loving as they are pious, all this was deeply offensive. And, in a way, that was the intention: satire has to shock.
Being shocking is going to involve offending someone. If there is a right to free speech, implicit within it there has to be a right to offend. Any society that’s serious about liberty has to defend the free flow of ugly words, even ugly sentiments”.

It pointed out that there is “something distinctly French about the form of offensiveness that Charlie Hebdo revelled in. Anti-clericalism has always been a republican rallying cry, especially on the left, in a way that’s unknown in Britain and the US”. 
But the defence of republican virtues must not be “allowed to slide into any kind of backlash against France’s entire Muslim community”. It concluded: “All those who are appalled by these crimes must use the free speech which the killers sought to silence – and use it to condemn them, without equivocation”.
The Financial Times, asserting that the right of Charlie Hebdo to lampoon religion should not be in doubt, believed the murders were “designed to seed an insidious form of self-censorship” which “must be roundly and defiantly condemned”.
Like other papers, it was concerned about the impact of the crime on French society. “At a time of deep political and economic malaise, the anti-immigrant National Front led by Marine Le Pen may profit from a new burst of anti-Islamic feeling”. It continued:

“In any democratic society, there should always be room for a civilised debate about taste and propriety when it comes to the mockery of any religious faith. 
But what cannot be challenged is the fundamental right of all citizens to express themselves freely within the law. In an age marked by growth in religious belief and the increasing politicisation of faith, all religion must be open to opinion, analysis and lampoonery … 
Charlie Hebdo may be a very different publication to our own, but the courage of its journalists – and their right to publish – cannot be placed in doubt. A free press is worth nothing if its practitioners do not feel free to speak”.

Similarly, the Independent argued that for Charlie Hebdo’s staff, “to offend was their right”. While “other publications chose to tread carefully around Muslim sensitivities” it did not.

“Here, an obvious point bears repetition: neither Hebdo’s editors nor its staff hold an ounce of responsibility for ‘provoking’ the assassins, as has been suggested in some quarters. 
There can be no rhyme, reason or righteousness in murdering civilians. From the 1989 fatwa on Salman Rushdie to that issued on Geert Wilders, the Islamophobic Dutch politician, the cry of ‘death to blasphemers’ has no place in the modern world”.

Yet, said the Indy, “it would be misguided to paint such attacks as the product of some volcanic clash of civilisations … studies show that French Muslims identify with, and participate in, their nation to a striking degree”.
The Sun agreed: “the freedom to speak out, within the law, must prevail”, it said, and only the sickest mind would avenge “offence” through mass murder.
It called the attackers “savages from another time … throwbacks from the Middle Ages” who oppose “cherished modern concepts we take for granted – democracy, equality, law, free speech and satire”. It continued:

“They live by an outdated code that allows the execution of non-believers – which they carry out with relish. They cannot be understood. Only condemned, protected against and fought …
Ultimately, it is vital for moderate Muslims to expose and combat extremism in their communities. They must steer their kids away from the evil, insane idea that Allah wants them to kill in his name. They must teach them too that free speech is a cornerstone of our democracy”.

The Mail, in A murderous attack on Western freedoms, also thought the terrorists betrayed a “medieval motive” for their “hideous crime”: 

“We believe passionately that if liberty is to mean anything, it must include the freedom to mock, offend or question the beliefs of others, within the limits of democratically decided law.
On any other day, the Mail would feel only distaste for a French magazine with a history of sniggering at faiths held sacred by billions worldwide.
But today, freedom lovers everywhere, whatever their religion, should proclaim the slogan of solidarity with the murdered staff of Charlie Hebdo: ‘Je suis Charlie!’”

The Express referred to the “jihadists’ warped morality”. Murdering people “because of what they have written or drawn goes against our values of freedom and tolerance”.
And the Mirror, in an editorial headlined, “Stay strong for freedom”, said:
“We stand in solidarity with those assassinated in the war on the Frenchsatirical magazine … The most powerful response to the massacre is a defiant resolve to defend freedom of speech and our way of life”.



Topics



France




Europe




National newspapers




Newspapers




Newspapers & magazines



More…



The Guardian




The Independent




Financial Times




The Times




Daily Telegraph




Daily Mail




The Sun




Daily Express




Daily Star




Metro




Daily Mirror




Northern & Shell








Share on Facebook







Share on Twitter







Share via Email







Share on LinkedIn







Share on Google+







Share on WhatsApp



















 






related content












popular












 








The Guardian






back to top














home




US




world




opinion




sports




soccer




tech




arts




lifestyle




fashion




business




money




travel




environment







all sections
close







home




US




world




UK




europe




americas




asia




middle east




africa




australia






opinion




sports




soccer




MLS




NFL




MLB




NBA




NHL






soccer




live scores




tables




competitions




results




fixtures




clubs






tech




games






arts




movies




tv & radio




music




books




art & design




stage




classical






lifestyle




food




health




love & sex




family




women




home & garden






fashion




business




markets




companies






money




travel




USA




europe




UK






environment




development




cities






science




media
selected




crosswords




video











Media




›
France








jobs

subscribe
all topics
all contributors

info and resources

contact us

feedback

complaints & corrections
terms & conditions
privacy policy
cookie policy
securedrop


© 2015 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.






















 
