AFTER CHARLIE: THE SECURITY STATE

How symbolic attacks justify surveillance and emergency powers— and why UAPA’s bail standards keep Umar Khalid jailed before trial.

- TDG NETWORK

On 7 January 2015, two brothers forced their way into the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris and opened fire, killing 12 people and injuring 11 others.

The attack, which was followed by hostage-taking at a kosher supermarket, shocked France and much of the world because the targets were journalists and cartoonists whose work symbolised the freedom to criticise and lampoon powerful figures. Vigils were held across France and the slogan “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) became a rallying cry for those who saw the assault as an attack on freedom of expression. At the same time, governments used the political shock generated by these highly symbolic acts to justify expanded surveillance powers and emergency legislation while deploying culture-war narratives that portrayed dissenters as disloyal. The tendency to respond to symbolic attacks with exceptional measures is not unique to France; it echoes responses in the United States after 9/11 and in India after terror attacks and unrest. This essay examines how these policies unfolded, how critics assessed them, and why culture-war narratives became intertwined with national security.

THE CHARLIE HEBDO ATTACK AND ITS SYMBOLISM