Several readers sent me the new cover of Charlie Hebdo (CH), which I reproduce below. It shows a tearful Muhammad holding a sign that says (in translation) “I am Charlie”—the motto taken up by many after the murders—along with the header “Tout est pardoné”: “Everything is forgiven.” The new print run, instead of being the usual 60,000, will be 50 times that—3 million copies, and in 16 languages. I don’t suppose the murderers anticipated that their thuggery would revive and popularize a financially ailing publication.
Curiously, the cover drawing came from an article in the newspaper USA Today which, like many publications cowed by fear of Muslim wrath, notes this:
USA TODAY traditionally does not show images of Mohammed to avoid offending Muslim readers. But the magazine cover has enough news value to warrant its publication in this case.
Yeah, right. The Danish Jyllands-Posten cartoons or the Charlie Hebdo covers that prompted the murders didn’t have news value, but when a new CH cover comes out after the murders and actually shows the Prophet (violence be on him), that has news value? Give me a break.
Anyway, the cover can be interpreted in several ways. Matthew had one take and I had a different one. Perhaps the magazine meant it to be ambiguous. So I’m curious how the readers interpret it. Who, exactly, is being forgiven? Is Muhammad forgiving the magazine after the outcry? Or is the magazine forgiving the murderers? Or could the magazine even be forgiving those who were too quick to take up the “I am Charlie” slogan? Might it be all of these? Or are there other interpretations that make sense?
Before you weigh in below—and I really am curious how reader see this, especially in light of the misinterpretation of the earlier CH cartoons as racist, bigoted, and homophobic—have a look at what the cartoonist himself said about the cover:
This week’s front page was drawn by cartoonist Renald Luzier, known as Luz.
[The French newspaper] Liberation said the Charlie Hebdo team took up their pens on Friday, “with the objective of showing Charlie Hebdo was not dead”.
Shortly after the attacks Luz discussed the symbol Charlie Hebdo had become during an interview with Les Inrocks.
“The media made a mountain out of our cartoons when on a worldwide scale we are merely a damn teenage fanzine,” he said.
“This fanzine has become a national and international symbol, but it was people that were assassinated, not the freedom of speech … people who sat in an office and drew cartoons.”
Finally, to put this issue to rest, have a look at the Daily Kos article, “The Charlie Hebdo cartoons no one is showing you,” which makes perfectly clear the magazine’s pro-immigrant and anti-racist slant.
If there are two social lessons from this whole horrible incident, they are these. Many magazines and newspapers are still fearful of Muslim wrath, and won’t reprint cartoons even when they have immense news value. Second, many bloggers were quick on the trigger to accuse Charlie Hebdo of racism, bigotry, and even homophobia—all without making the slightest investigation of what the cartoons actually meant. It’s time for magazines to overcome their cowardice, and for those bloggers to examine their tendency to see racism and bigotry everywhere.

















