Sympathize With the Victims, Do Not Collaborate With the Perpetrators

The West expressed outrage over the attacks on Charlie Hebdo’s freedom of expression, but has long stood idly by as China silences its dissenting voices.

Liao Yiwu's above photograph of an anti-government protestor resulted in the suspension of his Facebook account. Photo via Twitter.

The West takes the principle “freedom of speech” for granted, but it can be fatal when it touches the nerves of religious zealots. On January 7th, the shooting at the weekly French satirical Charlie Hebdo paralyzed the world. Two brothers, born in France to Algerian parents, were the assailants. Although they grew up and were educated in France, they never identified with the West. Instead, they were radicalized even as they lived in Paris. After the killing, they left their IDs in their getaway car. This was likely on purpose: the nameless killers wanted to become famous “heroes” worldwide, for protecting Muhammad’s honor and eliminating those who published blasphemy.

Many voices in the Islamic world have condemned this barbaric act of terrorism. Although the perpetrators acted as individuals, the terrorist ideology, perpetuated by organizations like Al Qaeda, is the real source of evil. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are not the only ones who attack “freedom of expression” in our world: authoritarian state powers systematically use censorship, and intimidate those with dissenting opinions through threats, harassment, kidnapping, imprisonment or even murder. When this happens, the Western world stands by and says nothing. In certain situation, when the perpetrator is powerful enough, the West even plays the role of accomplice.

In the past several months, the Xi Jinping administration has arrested several dozen writers, journalists, and civil rights defenders. Those who sympathized with Hong Kong’s 2014 “Umbrella Revolution” were treated like criminals. The accusations against them ranged from “leaking state secrets,” and “inciting subversion to the state power” to “provocation and disruption of public order.” Uighur scholar Ilham Tohti received a life sentence over accusations of advocating “separatism.” The Chinese government took advantage of the international anxiety over terrorism and conjured it into political capital to suppress the unsatisfied minorities in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Mongolia. By dangling economic baits, China attracts greedy Western companies into becoming its accomplices.

Last December, the US-based Facebook headquarters suspended the account of Tibetan dissident writer Tsering Woeser: Facebook removed her video of a Tibetan monk self-immolating. Days later, the same thing happened to famous exiled writer Liao Yiwu. Liao received a notice from Facebook saying that he had posted content that offended Facebook’s community guidelines. However, Liao had also posted a photo of his artist friend Meng Huang streaking in front of the Swedish Academy in Stockholm, in protest of the ongoing imprisonment of Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo. Liao believes that was the real reason his account was closed.

Days later, the Global Times, which is published under the patronage of the Chinese government, reported on the shutdown of Liao’s Facebook account. In an editorial, it admitted that this kind of account suspension normally only happens in China. Meng Huang’s naked photograph was not pornographic but political. Liao had even pasted an image of Mao Zedong’s head over Meng’s groin, with the provocative caption: “Meng’s little penis and old, fluffy Mao will both be recorded in history.” The Global Times editorial pointed out, “Freedom of expression in the West is not without its limits. It firmly protects its own principles. Liao and the Chinese government have conflicted, and sometimes his behavior cannot even be accepted by the Western media. To be in peace and harmony with him is a challenge, no matter where he is.”

Although Facebook has reactivated both Woeser’s and Liao’s accounts , the massacre at Charlie Hebdo has inflamed the discussion again. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg joined the “Je suis Charlie” protest, defending free speech. Yet Woeser and Liao doubt his sincerity. Woeser argued, “No, Mark Zuckerberg, you are NOT Charlie,” as reported by The Washington Post. Woeser believes that the clever Zuckerberg wanted to get credit from the Chinese authority, so that China’s ban on Facebook could be lifted in the foreseeable future.

Whether Zuckerberg is “Charlie” or not, the real question is how money and power determines who the Western world decides to align with: on the one side, an organized state terror that attacks “free speech” and human rights, while on the other, a huge market with opportunity for profit. As Liao Yiwu said, the Paris killers kidnapped the Islamic religion, and the Chinese government has kidnapped its country and its people, their religion, and their freedom. He admits that he is fearful of the state power and the possibility of violence, but as writing and free speech is his religion, he will continue his work.

If Zuckerberg means to be a true “Charlie”, then he should know that he has money and power enough to challenge China’s “state terrorism.” The bottom line is to sympathize with the victims and not collaborate with the perpetrators.