Murder is not an acceptable consequence for anything. The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo – and writers and artists everywhere – should be able to express themselves and challenge authority without being murdered. Still, my distaste should not dictate the work the magazine produces or anything else. I find some of the work of Charlie Hebdo distasteful, because there is a preponderance of bigotry of all kinds in many of their cartoons’ sentiments. I believe in the freedom of expression, unequivocally – though, as I have written before, I wish more people would understand that freedom of expression is not freedom from consequence. There are times when silence equals consent, but is the loss of someone else’s life really such an instance? Is it reasonable to assume that if je ne suis pas Charlie, I tacitly endorse terrorism? We can and do empathize with how fragile we all are, and with how we cannot be ruled by terror, but why the rhetorical urge to take the place of the fallen? What does it bring them? I, too, have ached since hearing the news of what happened in Paris but je ne suis pas Charlie et je ne suis pas Ahmed et je ne suis pas juif. We can and do empathize with the plights of the dead, the survivors and their loved ones. We have seen this kind of remembrance before in the face of tragedy: I am Troy Davis I am Mike Brown I am Eric Garner I am Renisha McBride.īut we are none of these people. They allowed people to try and place themselves in the lives of others by using the power of language.
![roxane gay new york times advice column roxane gay new york times advice column](https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5f57f4aa0ca7fe28f9ec3fa3/master/w_1327,h_2000,c_limit/roxane-gay-well-then-embed02.jpg)
These declarations were a display of solidarity with those who lost their lives and those who survived.