Charlie Hebdo is written near flowers and candles left at the Place de la Republique at midday in solidarity with victims of yesterday's terrorist attack on January 8, 2015 in Paris, France. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Charlie Hebdo: what we know so far

Police in France are still tracking the three men responsible for killing 12 people yesterday at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Mass vigils are held around the world.

Police are still attempting to track down the three suspects believed to be responsible for yesterday's attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Meanwhile, people and organisations around the world have condemned the murder of 12 people, with many cities seeing spontaneous vigils where pens were held aloft in celebration of the right to satire and free speech.

French police have released the names of the 12 victims from the attack. They are:

  • Frédéric Boisseau, maintenance worker
  • Franck Brinsolaro, police officer
  • Jean "Cabu" Cabut, cartoonist
  • Stéphane "Charb" Charbonnier, editor-in-chief
  • Elsa Cayat, psychoanalyst and columnist
  • Philippe Honoré, cartoonist
  • Bernard Maris, economist and shareholder in Charlie Hebdo magazine
  • Ahmed Merabet, policeman
  • Moustapha Ourad, proofreader
  • Michel Renaud, festival organiser
  • Georges Wolinski, cartoonist
  • Bernard "Tignous" Verlhac, cartoonist

Clockwise, from top left: Jean "Cabu" Cabut, Bernard "Tignous" Verlhac, Stéphane "Charb" Charbonnier, Georges Wolinski. Photo: Getty Images

The remaining staff of Charlie Hebdo have said that they intend to print the magazine as normal next week, with an estimated print run of a million copies (compared to a usual run of around 60,000). The Guardian reports writer Patrick Pelloux saying that "stupidity will not win". Google has donated 250,000 to the magazine, while the staff have accepted an invitation from Libération magazine to use their office for work.

Three suspects have been named by French police: brothers Saïd Kouachi (32) and Chérif Kouachi (34), who are alleged to have carried out the attack, and 18-year-old Hamyd Moura, who was named as the driver of the getaway car. However, Moura reportedly handed himself into police immediately, with classmates claiming he was in school with them throughout the day of the shooting. At the time of writing, police are going door-to-door through the village of Corcy, northeast of Paris, believing the two brothers to be hiding somewhere in the area.

Reactions from around the world to the attacks have ranged from shocked to defiant. Many major cities, including London, Berlin, Moscow, Tunis and Rio de Janeiro, saw main squares and streets filled with candlelit vigils - and many people have stood while holding pens or pencils aloft, in a symbolic gesture of solidarity with the Charlie Hebdo victims:

A vigil in Lyons. Photo: Getty Images

The vigil in Trafalgar Square, London.

Cartoonists from every corner of the planet have also responded to the events in Paris yesterday.

However, there have already been several reprisal attacks reported by AFP against mosques across France. Early this morning a street cleaner and a police officer were also both shot in southern Paris, with police treating it as related to yesterday's attack.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

This is no time for civility towards Republicans – even John McCain

Appeals for compassion towards the cancer-stricken senator downplay the damage he and his party are doing on healthcare.

If it passes, the Republican health care bill currently being debated in the Senate will kill people. Over the past few months, the party has made several attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act passed under Obama, all of which share one key feature: they leave millions more people without healthcare.

Data indicates that every year, one in every 830 Americans who lack healthcare insurance will die unnecessarily. A report by the Congressional Budget Office suggests that the newest “skinny repeal” plan will leave an extra 16 million individuals uninsured. That’s an estimated annual body count of 19,277. Many more will be forced to live with treatable painful, chronic and debilitating conditions. Some will develop preventable but permanent disabilities and disfigurements - losing their sight, hearing or use of limbs.

This is upsetting to think about as an observer - thousands of miles across the Atlantic, in a country that has had universal, free at the point of delivery healthcare for almost seven decades. It is monstrously, unfathomably traumatic if you’re one of the millions of Americans who stand to be affected. If you’ve got loved ones who stand to be affected. If you’ve got an ongoing health condition and have no idea how you’ll afford treatment if this bill passes.

I’ve got friends who’re in this situation. They’re petrified, furious and increasingly exhausted. This process has been going on for months. Repeatedly, people have been forced to phone their elected representatives and beg for their lives. There is absolutely no ambiguity about consequences of the legislation. Every senator who supports the health care bill does so in the knowledge it will cost tens of thousands of lives - and having taken calls from its terrified potential victims.

They consider this justifiable because it will enable them to cut taxes for the rich. This might sound like an over simplistic or hyperbolic assertion, but it’s factually true. Past versions of the bill have included tax cuts for healthcare corporations and for individuals with incomes over $200,000 per year, or married couples making over $250,000. The current “skinny repeal” plan has dropped some of these changes, but does remove the employer mandate - which requires medium and large businesses to provide affordable health insurance for 95 per cent full-time employees.

On Tuesday, Senator John McCain took time out from state-funded brain cancer treatment to vote to aid a bill that will deny that same medical care to millions of poorer citizens. In response, ordinary US citizens cursed and insulted him and in some cases wished him dead. This backlash provoked a backlash of its own, with commentators in both the UK and US bemoaning the lack of civility in contemporary discourse. The conflict revealed a fundamental divide in the way we understand politics, cause and effect, and moral culpability.

Over 170 years ago, Engels coined the term “social murder” to describe the process by which societies place poor people in conditions which ensure “they inevitably meet a too early… death”. Morally, it’s hard to see what distinguishes voting to pass a healthcare bill you know will kill tens of thousands from shooting someone and stealing their wallet. The only difference seems to be scale and the number of steps involved. It’s not necessary to wield the weapon yourself to have blood on your hands.

In normal murder cases, few people would even begin to argue that killers deserve to be treated with respect. Most us would avoid lecturing victims’ on politeness and calm, rational debate, and would recognise any anger and hate they feel towards the perpetrator as legitimate emotion. We’d accept the existence of moral rights and wrongs. Even if we feel that two wrongs don’t make a right, we’d understand that when one wrong is vastly more abhorrent and consequential than the other, it should be the focus of our condemnation. Certainly, we wouldn’t pompously insist that a person who willingly took another’s life is “wrong, not evil”.

Knowing the sheer, frantic terror many of my friends in the US are currently experiencing, I’ve found it sickening to watch them be scolded about politeness by individuals with no skin in the game. If it’s not you our your family at risk, it’s far easier to remain cool and detached. Approaching policy debates as an intellectual exercise isn’t evidence of moral superiority - it’s a function of privilege.

Increasingly, I’m coming round to the idea that incivility isn’t merely justifiable, but actively necessary. Senators voted 51-50 in favour of debating a bill that will strip healthcare from millions of people. It’s unpleasant to wish that John McCain was dead—but is it illegitimate to note that, had he been unable to vote, legislation that will kill tens of thousands of others might have been blocked? Crude, visceral language can be a way to force people to acknowledge that this isn’t simply an abstract debate—it’s a matter of life and death.

As Democratic congressman Keith Ellison has argued, merely resisting efforts to cut healthcare isn’t enough. Millions of Americans already lack health insurance and tens of thousands die every year as a result. The Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction, but the coalition of resistance that has been built to defend it must also push further, for universal coverage. Righteous anger is necessary fuel for that fight.