I have major problems with Gary Trudeau’s denunciation of Charlie Hebdo, but I’ve already shared such thoughts at length. I also, however, have a more minor problem with his piece.
The White House took a lot of hits for not sending a high-level representative to the pro-Charlie solidarity march, but that oversight is now starting to look smart.
This form of argument is common: people criticized x at the time for doing y, but y now looks smart. If you can show that subsequent events have vindicated your argument, you’re in great shape. You have a sort of external standard, independent of the argument itself, by which to judge it a success.
If you can’t point to subsequent events, though, all you’re really saying is “people criticized x for doing y, but I think doing y was smart.” (Or perhaps, “elite opinion has subsequently decided that doing y was smart.”) Your argument should stand on its own merits, not on some imaginary external vindication.
In Trudeau’s case, his argument is that Obama was smart not to show solidarity against blasphemy law terrorists because “[t]he French tradition of free expression is too full of contradictions to fully embrace. Even Charlie Hebdo once fired a writer for not retracting an anti-Semitic column. Apparently he crossed some red line that was in place for one minority but not another.” This really has nothing to do with subsequent events vindicating Trudeau’s argument, and so Trudeau is just employing a rhetorical crutch.
Now let’s look at the merits of this particular argument: we should not stand by Charlie Hebdo, because they are contradictory for allowing anti-Islam cartoons, but not anti-Semitic ones. Obviously, being contradictory isn’t the core of his objection. If Hebdo unapologetically published anti-Semitic stuff, in addition to blasphemy against Mohammed, presumably Trudeau wouldn’t then decide Obama should stand with them.
The core of Trudeau’s argument, instead, is his equation of blasphemy with bigotry. He treats mockery of sacred beliefs as being equally bad as malicious stereotypes of a group of people. So just as there is a taboo on attacking people groups, especially vulnerable ones, Trudeau would place one on attacking people’s beliefs, provided these people consider those beliefs sacred.
People can’t be expected to agree on sacred beliefs in the way they can about the equal worth of all people. So if we’re in the business of government protecting the sacred, how do we decide what is sacred? One solution is to impose a partial theocracy: pick one religious group (Muslims, for instance) and give them veto over what can and cannot be said. Another is a kind of secularist oppression: nobody can say anything in the public realm for or against any religion or belief system, so that we purchase public peace by keeping everyone’s beliefs insulated from each other, and from criticism.