Justifications in the debate on citizenship

Abstract

Chapter 8 is devoted to an analysis of the justifications used by the different actors in debating the Charlie Hebdo attacks. In particular, it looks at the ways in which participants in the public debates use justifications for their claims, which become all the more relevant in “critical moments.” Referring to the “imperative to justify,” the chapter analyzes the moral principles referred to in the everyday debate. Among religious organizations, justifications refer to communitarian versus cosmopolitan views, freedom entering in tension with offenses against religion (blasphemy), and liberty with claims about security. Ecumenical arguments are also countered by claims about the superiority of one’s own religion. With regard to the justifications in the radical right, the Charlie Hebdo attacks gave more leverage to a justification based to a certain extent on civic values—such as defending freedom—but strongly bridged within justifications coming from the traditional world of worthiness. In general, the left addresses the Charlie Hebdo attacks with some difficulty, with tensions between a traditionally inclusive position toward migrants and minorities and the defense of freedom—which is perceived as a collective, rather than individual, right.