The much sought-after Jan 14 edition of Charlie Hebdo.

You’ve probably been reading in the news about people fighting (!!) over today’s edition of Charlie Hebdo—the first edition of the newspaper to be released after the slaughter of much of its staff. I reserved ahead of time with my local newsstand, so was able to get 2 copies. (One for me, one for a friend who reserved 3 days ago!)

For those who can’t get their hands on one, or who can’t read French, I did a super-fast translation, most probably riddled with errors, but it will hopefully give you the gist of  the editorial that Gerard Biard wrote in the lead pages.

“In one week, Charlie, atheist journal, accomplished more miracles than all the saints and prophets together. The one we’re most proud of is that you have between your hands the newspaper we’ve always made, in company of those who have always made it. What made us laugh the most was the bells of Notre-Dame ringing in our honor…

For one week, Charlie has, across the world, done more than move mountains. In one week, as Willem has so magnificently drawn, Charlie has lots of new friends. Both anonymous and global celebrities, both the humble and the rich, both unbelievers and religious dignitaries, both the sincere and the hypocrites, both those we will keep for life and those who are very briefly passing through. Today, we’ll take them all: we don’t have the time or heart to pick and choose. Even so, we aren’t fools. We thank with all our hearts those who, by the millions, whether they are simple citizens or represent institutions, are truly by our sides. Who sincerely and profoundly ‘are Charlie’ and who identify with us. Fuck the others, who in any case, don’t give a damn.

One question, all the same, is gnawing at us: are we finally going to erase from the political and intellectual vocabulary the dirty word ‘die-hard secularist’? [Term used is laïcard intégriste.] [Amy’s note: from now on where I use the word “secularism” the writer has used la laïcité.] Are we finally going to stop inventing clever semantic convolutions to qualify the assassins and their victims in the same manner?

These last years, we have felt a bit alone in trying to repel with a stroke of the pencil the candid smut and the pseudo-intellectual ruses thrown in our face and in the face of our friends who firmly defended secularism: [we’ve been called] Islamophobes, anti-Christian, provocateurs, irresponsible, throwing oil on the fire, racists, you were asking for it…Yes, we condemn terrorism, but… Yes, sending death threats to cartoonists is bad, but… Yes, burning down a newspaper is bad, but… We have heard it all, and our friends as well. We have often tried to laugh at it, because that’s what we do best. But now we would really like to laugh about something else. Because it’s already starting again. The blood of Cabu, Charb, Honoré, Tignous, Wolinski, Elsa Cayat, Bernard Maris, Mustapha Ourrad, Michel Renaud, Franck Brinsolaro, Frédéric Boisseau, Ahmed Merabet, Clarissa Jean-Philippe, Philippe Braham, Yohan Cohen, Yoav Hattab, François-Michel Saada, was not even dry when Thierry Meyssan explained to his Facebook fans that it was obviously had to do with a Judéo-American-Western plot. We already heard, here and there, the finicky pouting at last Sunday’s rally, drooling from the edges of their lips the eternal quibbles aiming to justify, openly or quietly, terrorism and religious fascism, and being outraged, among other things that honoring the policeman = SS. No, in this massacre no deaths were less unjust than others. Franck, who died in Charlie’s office, and all his colleagues slaughtered during this week of inhumanity died defending ideas that, perhaps, were not even theirs.

Even so, we will try to be optimists, even though it isn’t the season. We are going to hope that starting on this 7th of January 2015 the solid defense of secularism will be self-evident for everyone, that we will finally cease, by position, by electoral calculation or by cowardice, to legitimize or even to tolerate cultural communitarianism, and cultural relativism, which will only open the path to one thing: religious totalitarianism. Yes, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a reality, yes, international geopolitics is a succession of manoeuvrings and dirty tricks, yes, the social situation of, as we say, ‘populations of Muslim origin’ in France is profoundly unjust, yes, racism and discrimination must be fought unceasingly. Several tools exist to try to resolve these grave problems, but they are all useless if one of them is missing: secularism. Not positive secularism, not inclusive secularism, not whatever-the-hell-else secularism, secularism full stop. Only it will permit, because it advocates the universalism of rights, the exercise of equality, liberty, fraternity and sorority. Only it will permit the full freedom of conscience, freedom that is denied, more or less openly according to their marketing position, by all religions as soon as they leave the arena of strict privacy to descend into the political arena. Only it [secularism] permits, ironically, believers and others to live in peace. All who claim to defend Muslims by accepting totalitarian religious speech defend in fact their executioners. The first victims of Islamic fascism are the Muslims.

The millions of anonymous people, all of the institutions, all of the heads of state and of government, all the political, intellectual and media personalities, all the religious dignitaries who, this week, proclaimed ‘I am Charlie’ need to know that also means ‘I am secularism.’ We are convinced that, for the majority of our supporters, that goes without saying. We’ll let the rest sort that out themselves.

One last important thing. We would like to send a message to Pope Francis who, himself, ‘is Charlie’ this week: we will only accept the bells of Notre-Dame ringing in our honor when it is Femen who ring them.”

That is my super-speedy imperfect translation of today’s editorial by Gerard Biard in Charlie Hebdo. (If you have the original and see any errors, please don’t hesitate to let me know.)