FREE SPEECH VERSUS THE RIGHT TO OFFEND?
Norwegian party leaders’ discourses post-Charlie Hebdo
May S. Andersen
Master thesis in
New Media and Digital Culture
University of Amsterdam
24 June 2016
FREE SPEECH VERSUS THE RIGHT TO OFFEND?
Norwegian party leaders’ discourses post-Charlie Hebdo
Abstract
The Charlie Hebdo shooting January 7 2015 sparked a debate among Norwegian politicians on free speech versus the right to offend. A key issue was whether, and to what extent, free speech should be limited by the concern that some individuals and groups might find views offensive and provocative. Through discourse analysis, mainly Fairclough’s theoretical approach to discourse, this thesis investigates how Norwegian politicians, specifically the party leaders of Norway's eight largest and most influential political parties, articulated their views on free speech in the following eight Norwegian newspapers after the
Charlie Hebdo attack: Aftenposten, Dagsavisen, Dagbladet, Dagens Næringsliv, Klassekampen, Morgenbladet, Verdens Gang (VG) and Vårt Land. The time frame
is set from the day Charlie Hebdo was attacked in 2015, to the one-year anniversary of the attack in 2016. The aim of this thesis is 1) to examine the attention given to free speech in the eight mentioned papers, 2) to identify the main discourses on free speech used by politicians in the mentioned newspapers, and 3) to examine whether the discourse on free speech changed
during the year investigated.
Three main discourses were identified: 1) free speech as an absolute value, 2) free speech limited by concern for those who may be offended and 3) free speech with a right – almost obligation to offend. By locating disagreements, or “discursive battles”, the aim is to find out how representatives of the various political parties attempt to rally support for their views.
Foreword
First and foremost, I want to thank my supervisor Stefania Milan for guiding me through this thesis, providing constructive criticism and feedback but also for motivating me with her kind words, humour and encouragement. I could not have asked for a better supervisor. In addition, a big thanks my mum and dad for helping me lift my eyes and clear my mind of frustration when overwhelmed by the task. Thanks to my husband, Lucas, for having patiently persevered with me and provided hugs and vast amounts of great needed coffee on late nights. Last, but not least, thanks to my good friend Sol Rebecca Angelica Alberts for last minute proof reading.
Table of Content
Abstract Foreword Table of Content Tables and figures 1. Introduction ... 1 1.1 The Charlie Hebdo attack 7 January 2015 ... 1 1.2 Free speech versus the right to offend ... 2 1.3 Charlie Hebdo’s challenging traditions ... 3 1.4 The Scandinavian Cartoon Controversy ... 5 1.5 The French Cartoon Controversy ... 7 1.6 The subsequent terrorist attacks ... 8 1.7 Research questions ... 9 1.8 The context of the study: Free speech and party profiles in Norway ... 11 1.9 Structure of the thesis ... 17 2. Discourse theory ... 19 2.1 Three approaches ... 19 2.2 Fairclough’s critical discourse theory ... 20 Concepts and applications ... 21 The communicative event ... 21 2.3 Democratic theory ... 24 Five demands of ideal democracy ... 24 Free speech and the media ... 25 3. Methodological approach ... 27 3.1 Selection of time frame ... 27 3.2 Selection of political parties and party leaders ... 27 Table 1. Parties, number of MPs and party leaders. ... 28 3.4 Selection of Norwegian newspapers ... 29 3.5 Gathering and sampling material for analysis ... 30 3.6 Alternative search queries for two party leaders ... 31 3.7 Excel sheet to collect free speech discourses ... 32 3.8 Translation of data from Norwegian to English ... 33 4. Quantitative findings and analysis ... 34 4.1 Attention given to freedom of speech ... 34 4.2 Mapping of main and sub-discourses ... 35 Manual exclusion of some discourses in the material ... 36 4.3 Quantitative mapping of discourses ... 36 Explaining and illustrating the categories ... 39 4.4 Main discourse 1: Free speech as an absolute value ... 39 1A. Free speech as cornerstone in democracy ... 39 1B. Free speech as a universal right for everyone ... 41 1C. Free speech in need of protection ... 43 4.5 Main discourse 2: Free speech limited by concern for those that can be offended ... 44 2A. Some things are so important that they need protection from free speech ... 44 2B. Free speech invokes moral self-discipline ... 45 2C. Free speech responsibility restricts free speech ... 46 4.6 Main discourse 3: Free speech with a right – almost obligation – to offend .. 463A. Offence and provocations are necessary in a liberal society ... 46 3B. Free speech must override religious and cultural “dogmas” ... 47 3C. Provocative utterances needs protection ... 49 4.7 How party leaders place themselves in relation to the categories ... 50 4.8 Discussion of quantitative findings ... 55 5. Qualitative analysis and main findings for two major parties ... 57 5.1 Norway, a secular society ... 57 5.2 Jonas Gahr Støre ... 57 The Labour Party’s immigration and integration policy ... 58 “Utterance responsibility” ... 59 Støre’s free speech opinions the day of the Charlie Hebdo attack ... 59 “It is not important to stand up for Blasphemy” ... 60 “The utterance is frightening” ... 60 A sudden attempt to defend free speech ... 61 “From golden boy to jelly lump” ... 62 Conflict shy reply to blasphemy critique ... 62 Støre and Salman Rushdie ... 62 More critique of Støre ... 63 “Wobble-Jonas” versus “fable animal Jonas that defends the principle of free speech” ... 63 Record high poll support and one last statement followed by silence ... 64 5.3 Erna Solberg ... 65 The Conservative Party’s immigration policy ... 65 Solberg’s utterances in the free speech debate 2015 ... 66 Protecting the principle of absolute free speech ... 66 Marching and hugging to counter terror ... 66 Critique of Støre’s handling of the caricature crisis in 2006 ... 67 A defence of free speech requires not only words, but also action ... 69 Provocative utterances needs protection ... 70 Conflicting perspectives and new challenges ... 71 Happy birthday Si ;D ... 72 5.4 Summarizing the comparison of Støre and Solberg ... 72 5.5 A discussion of the discourses ... 74 6. Concluding remarks ... 76 7. Appendix: Three main discourses and sub-categories ... 81 Literature ... 82
Tables and figures
Figure 1. Fairclough’s three-dimensional model ... 22 Table 2. Monthly attention given to Charlie Hebdo and free speech 7 January 2015 – 7 January 2016……….. ... 35 Table 3. Quantitative mapping of Norwegian politicians’ free speech discourses ... 38 Table 4. The politicians’ free speech discourses divided between various categories ... 51 Table 5. Støre and Solberg’s use of free speech discourses ... 731. Introduction
The attack on the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo 7 January 2015, is regarded as a provocative attack on free speech and is an extension of the global debate on free speech versus the right to offend. In this chapter, previous terrorist attacks and events leading up to the Charlie Hebdo attack in 2015 will be presented to provide insight into the context of this study. The context involves an overview of the Scandinavian and French cartoon controversy, in addition to a look at Charlie Hebdo’s challenging traditions. The focus of the thesis is to investigate the Norwegian free speech debate after the attack on
Charlie Hebdo. A clearer explanation of what this entails will be given shortly and
revisited under 1.7 where the research questions will be presented, and under 1.9 which covers the structure of the thesis and how to answer these questions.
1.1 The Charlie Hebdo attack 7 January 2015
The past ten years have been characterized by many attacks on freedom of expression – including artistic expressions as well as the printed word (Hume 2015). Among them was the murderous attack on the French satire magazine
Charlie Hebdo. Two Islamist gunmen violently demonstrated their hatred for the
right to free speech and freedom of the press by attacking the magazine’s headquarter in Paris (Hume 6). Eight cartoonists and journalists, two policemen and two others were killed.1 The attack came as a reaction to Charlie Hebdo’s
front cover that week, depicting the prophet Muhammad.2 After Sunni Islamic
interpretation of the Koran it is offensive to depict the Prophet,3 and when
leaving the building the two gunmen declared that they had “avenged the
Prophet Muhammad”.4
The attack on Charlie Hebdo sparked a global debate on the right to free speech versus the right to offend and provoke. Four days after the attack, 11 January 2015, around 3.7 million people gathered in Paris and across France and 1 https://charliehebdo.fr/en/history/ (Read 26 January 2016) 2 https://charliehebdo.fr/en/history/ (Retrieved 26 January 2016) 3 http://www.dagsavisen.no/helg-nye-inntrykk/karikaturstriden-1.309843# (Retrieved 5 March 2016) 4 https://charliehebdo.fr/en/history/ (Retrieved 26 January 2016)
marched for solidarity, unity and in memory of the victims, raising pencils and pens and holding up signs with the slogan “Je suis Charlie” – I am Charlie.5 Many
of the world’s leaders attended. “All is forgiven”, a cartoon of Muhammad holding a sign with the slogan “Je souis Charlie”cried out on the cover of Charlie Hebdo the following week.6 The social network platform Facebook flooded over with
black profile pictures with the same slogan. Under the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie, the Twitter feed was filled with Charlie Hebdo caricatures and artists from around the world contributed with their own illustrations to the debate.7
Western society stood together in support of free speech, or at least the colloquial rhetorical and ritualistic gestures made it seem so. However, in the wake of the attack it became clear that the world’s seemingly collective support for Charlie Hebdo’s right to free speech was far from universal (Hume 6). Many felt contempt for the freedom of expression that allows provocative publications like the ones of Charlie Hebdo (Hume 6). And a need to balance and thus limit free speech by concern for those that could be offended emerged in Europe and America (Hume 6 and 7).
1.2 Free speech versus the right to offend
Free speech is under tremendous pressure (Hume 5). Not only do Islamic
extremists attempt to limit free speech with bullets or other means of violence, some liberal people of the West also want to limit the space for free speech by concern for those who might be offended by it, or for other personal or political reasons (Hume 7). The debate sparked by the Charlie Hebdo attack has revealed a fundamental dilemma that underlies liberal democracies – how one can protect the right to free expression while restricting damaging effects of racism and other forms of discrimination related to ethnicity and religion (Bleich 3). How to deal with this dilemma is what this thesis sets out to investigate through the mapping and analysis of Norwegian politicians’ free speech opinions uttered in Norwegian media in the year following the Charlie Hebdo attack, as the 5 http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/11/world/charlie-hebdo-paris-march/ (Retrieved 20 June 2016) 6 https://mic.com/articles/108288/here-is-charlie-hebdo-s-next-cover-and-it-s-absolutely-perfect#.BaH8ko2Sp (Retrieved 20 June 2016) 7 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35108339 (Retrieved 19 June 2016)
media play an essential role in shaping public opinion (McQuail 5). A presentation of the selected newspapers will follow later in this chapter. This limitation of the scope is done because the global free speech debate is extensive and complex with many views and opinions, and thus it would be a lifetime project to analyse the international free speech debate as a whole.
Theoretically this thesis is based on a discourse perspective. Discourse is defined by Marianne Winther Jørgensen and Louise Phillips (1) as “a particular way of talking about and understanding the world (or an aspect of the world)”. A discourse thus contributes to the construction of what we perceive as the “truth” and through critical discourse analysis I seek to find out what “truths” are constructed on free speech by Norwegian politicians in Norwegian media. The aim is to locate dominant discourses in the free speech debate and discursive battles. The latter involves the struggle for “hegemony”. The concept of hegemony is not only about dominance, but also a negotiation process out of which consensus concerning meaning emerges. The concept therefore provides a mean to analyse how discursive practice, and the reproduction and transformation of the order of discourse when already existing discourses are articulated in new ways. This is part of a larger social practice involving power relations (Jørgensen and Philips 76). The approach will be explained further in the theory chapter, but first a look at Charlie Hebdo’s challenging traditions. 1.3 Charlie Hebdo’s challenging traditions Throughout the years Charlie Hebdo has deliberately offended many people and challenged most kinds of power and power hierarchies “combining left wing radicalism with a provocative scurrility often bordering the obscene”.8 Charlie
Hebdo stands for secularism with “no ifs and no buts”9, a principle which implies
the strict separation of the state from religious institutions and that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.10 Founded in 1970, the
8 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-15551998 (Retrieved 17 February 2016) 9 https://charliehebdo.fr/en/ (Retrieved 5 December 2015 )
magazine is a part of a venerable tradition in French Journalism.11 According to
former editor Stéphane Charbonnier (known as “Charb”), who was one of the twelve killed in the 2015 attack, the magazine’s editorial viewpoint reflects “all components of left wing pluralism”.12 The magazine has printed cartoons
depicting the police holding the dripping heads of immigrants, masturbating nuns, popes wearing condoms, drowned refugee children – anything to make a point. And for most Europeans these examples make the caricature of the Prophet Muhammad look like an innocent children’s illustration in comparison.13
Few others can symbolically slay the power holders of today’s society; politicians, the police, bankers and religion, like Charlie Hebdo’s critical pen. Charlie claims to stand against:
Religions that move mountains … of fools. Redneck xenophobes who won the birthplace lottery. Facebook billionaire’s googeleising the world. Bankers gambling away our money. Industrialists forcing us to live in gasmasks. Footballers more air-headed than their footballs. Hunters who shoot at us when we’re picking mushrooms. Dictators who put us in the position of occasionally agreeing with Bernard Henri Levy.14
Recently the magazine has also described itself in the following way:
Charlie Hebdo is a punch in the face....
Against those who try to stop us thinking. Against those who fear imagination.
Against those who don’t like us to laugh. Charlie Hebdo is an angry magazine, a paper that takes the piss.
It’s a weekly with a wallop, a digest with a dream. It’s a periodical that argues and a journal that thinks.
It’s a gazette of the grotesque – because that’s what so much of life and politics is. 11 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-15551998 (Retrieved 17 February 2016) 12 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/what-charlie-hebdo-terrorists-target-4934843 (Retrieved 9 January 2016) 13http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/01/07/charlie_hebdo_covers_religious_satire_c artoons_translated_and_explained.html (Retrieved 3 March 2016) 14 https://charliehebdo.fr/en/ (Retrieved 5 December 2015)
It’s a rag that has nothing to lose in the afterlife for the laudably simple reason that there is no afterlife.
Charlie Hebdo has no need of God, nor any need of Wall Street. Charlie doesn’t need two cars and three cell phones to be happy.
To be happy, Charlie Hebdo draws, writes, interviews, ponders and laughs at everything on this earth which is ridiculous, giggles at all that is absurd or preposterous in life. Which is to say - very nearly everything.
Because life is so awfully short that it would be a pity to spend it whining in dismay instead of laughing it up a storm.
Charlie Hebdo – Satirical magazine, secular, political and jubilant, out every week on newsstands and every day on the Internet.15
Taken together, these characteristics place Charlie Hebdo firmly on the side of those defending the right to free expression, with few, if any restrictions. That is why they became the target for Islamist terror. Below I will now present the events and attacks on free speech in Scandinavia and France leading up to the
Charlie Hebdo attack 7 January 2015, to provide insight into the context
surrounding the study. 1.4 The Scandinavian Cartoon Controversy Satire is a unique genre and a powerful weapon. Although the magazine has been threatened and hit by violence several times throughout the years, Charlie Hebdo has never been afraid to use the right to free speech and the inviolable right to offend. But others have also tested the liberal reality in Europe by using their freedom of press and felt the consequences. The Danish journalist and one of the winners of “Freedom of Expression Foundation Tribute” in August 2015, Flemming Rose, maintains that we need to insist on the right to offend to avoid censorship and ending up in a “silence tyranny”.16 Rose is a foreign news editor 15 https://charliehebdo.fr/en/ (Retrieved 26 January 2016) 16 http://www.dagsavisen.no/helg-nye-inntrykk/karikaturstriden-1.309843# (Retrieved 5 March 2016)
for the conservative-liberal Danish daily Jyllands-Posten. In 2005 he worked as a cultural editor for Jyllands-Posten when the newspaper decided to test out the liberal Danish reality.17 Little did they imagine that this would have global
consequences.
The author Kåre Bluitken had just finished writing a children’s book on “The Koran and The Prophet Muhammad’s life” but could not find anyone to illustrate it.18 The Danish public was still shaken by the murder of the Dutch film
director Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam in November 2004.19 Illustrators did not
dare to use their pen afraid of suffering a similar fate from Islamic extremists.20
The murder of Theo van Gogh was carried out by a Muslim fundamentalist in response to his criticism of Islam in his film Submission, thus the banning of depicting Muhammad in Sunni Islam had already become well known in Denmark.21 This led to Jyllands-Posten’s idea of a cartoon competition. Rose was
given responsibility for the process. 42 artists were invited to draw their interpretation of the Prophet Muhammad, but only 12 illustrators took the challenge.22 30 September 2005 under the headline “Muhammad’s faces”, the
caricatures were published, and this was the beginning of the so-called “Scandinavian cartoon controversy”. Many Muslims saw the publication as a provocation, and there was rioting and violent demonstrations in several
countries.
It was the first time something that had been published in a Scandinavian newspaper had consequences of such a global magnitude.23 Despite the riots,
several European newspapers chose to reprint the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. This also included Norwegian newspapers. Aftenposten published a facsimile of the drawings just after they had appeared in Jyllands-Posten. In January 2006,
Dagbladet did the same. 10 January, the Norwegian Christian conservative
17 http://www.dagsavisen.no/helg-nye-inntrykk/karikaturstriden-1.309843# (Retrieved 5 March 2016) 18 http://www.dagsavisen.no/helg-nye-inntrykk/karikaturstriden-1.309843# (Retrieved 5 March 2016) 19 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/07/terrorism.religion (Retrieved 24 March 2016) 20 https://snl.no/karikaturstriden (Retrieved 20 February 2016) 21 https://snl.no/karikaturstriden (Retrieved 20 February 2016) 22 https://snl.no/karikaturstriden (Retrieved 20 February 2016) 23 https://snl.no/karikaturstriden (Retrieved 20 February 2016)
newspaper Magazinet printed facsimiles of the drawings under the heading "Freedom of speech is threatened”. 24 Magazinet editor Vebjørn Selbekk, the
second winner of the “Freedom of Expression Foundation Tribute” in August 2015, received death threats and had to go into hiding. February 4 the same year, the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were stormed and set on fire. 25
December 29 2010 four men were arrested for planning attacks on
Jyllands-Posten and Politikens Hus in Copenhagen.26
1.5 The French Cartoon Controversy
Next to Denmark and Norway, the cartoon controversy flared up most strongly in France. The newspaper France-Soir was the first in France to reprint the Mohammed cartoons with a front page saying "I have the right to caricature God". The editor was dismissed to limit the violent riots.27 Charlie Hebdo engaged
in the cartoon controversy as a clear advocate of freedom of speech. In 2006,
Charlie Hebdo published the 12 cartoons from Jyllands-Posten as well as some of
their own caricatures of the Prophet. 3 November 2011, the publication’s headquarters were firebombed after publishing a special “Sharia Hebdo” issue where the prophet Muhammad stood as senior editor in chief.28 No one was
killed in this attack, but the headquarters burned to the ground. Still after the firebombing in 2011, Charlie Hebdo continued to challenge, provoke and offend. In September 2012, French schools and embassies in 20 countries around the world closed as a result of threats that followed the magazine Charlie Hebdo publishing caricatures of a naked Prophet Muhammad.29 24 https://snl.no/karikaturstriden (Retrieved 20 February 2016) 25 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/04/religion.syria (Retrieved 10 January 2016) 26 https://snl.no/karikaturstriden (Retrieved 20 February 2016) 27 https://snl.no/karikaturstriden (Retrieved 20 February 2016) 28 https://charliehebdo.fr/en/history/ (Retrieved 26 January 2016) 29 https://snl.no/Charlie_Hebdo (Retrieved 2 April 2016)
1.6 The subsequent terrorist attacks In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack, three attacks followed. Here they will be briefly presented as part of the positioning of the present study. 9 January 2015 a Jewish grocery store in Paris was attacked and several people taken hostage. The hostage-taker did this in an attempt to ensure that the Kouachi-brother, who was responsible for the Charlie Hebdo attack two days earlier, would go free. The attempt failed, but the attack was also against the Jewish minority in Europe, which perhaps can be traced back to the seemingly never-ending Israel/Palestine conflict. 30 14 February 2015, a masked man opens fire against the participants at a free speech seminar arranged at “Krudttønden” culture house in Copenhagen.31 Amongst the participants was the Danish cartoonist Lars Vilks, who drew one of the controversial Muhammad caricatures published in Jyllands-Posten in 2006. He was probably the target, but survived.32 The attacker ran from the scene and
to the Synagogue in Copenhagen. Here he murdered a Jewish young man who kept watch while 80 people celebrated a Jewish confirmation in a parish house behind the synagogue. The Copenhagen terror can be seen as an extension of the threat to free speech, but also as a wider attack on Western culture considering it was an attack on the free speech conference held at the Danish culture house. In addition, it was an attack on the Jewish minority and can thus be seen in extension of the Israel/Palestine conflict. 13 November 2015 new terror ravaged in France. Seven terrorists conducted a series of simultaneous bomb- and shooting attacks against six different places in Paris.33 Cafés, restaurants, the
Bataclan concert hall and the football stadium Stade de France were targets. The "Bataclan attack" was an attack on Western culture and the Western way of life.
While the Charlie Hebdo attack was a clear attack on freedom of expression and press freedom, these three other terrorist attacks, which happened within the timeframe of this study, from 7 January 2015 till 7 January 30 https://www.nrk.no/urix/flere-gisler-drept-etter-terrorangrep-mot-jodisk-butikk-1.12140862 (Retrieved 19 June 2016) 31 http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/terrorangrepet-i-koebenhavn/slik-var-terrordoegnet-i-koebenhavn/a/23396450/ (Retrieved 17 June 2016) 32 http://www.dn.no/nyheter/utenriks/2015/02/14/1708/Danmark/en-drept-i-terrorangrep-i-kbenhavn (Retrieved 17 June 2016) 33 http://www.vg.no/spesial/2015/terrorangrepet-i-paris-oversikt/ (Retrieved 17 June 2015)
2016, had other agendas and other reasons. The politicians’ utterances post
Charlie Hebdo are thus concerned with free speech and free speech debate, while
the opinions expressed in relation to the three other terror attacks are more concerned with reassuring and protecting the public against terror by talk of unity and fearlessness, and increased preparedness in the form of armed police, surveillance and a stronger military armament in addition to standing up for and protecting the Jewish minority in Europe. This is of course interesting, but not really within the focus of this study, and statements uttered from the party leaders in relation to these three other attacks will therefore not be included in the dataset.
1.7 Research questions
The attack on Charlie Hebdo 7 January 2015 is an extension of the cartoon controversy, and has also led to an important shift in the Scandinavian debate.34
Before the Charlie Hebdo attack, the Norwegian free speech debate was characterized by politicians trying to “act responsibly” by engaging in dialogue and spread information to defuse tensions among offended Muslims around the world. Thus they tried to avoid conflict by not engaging in a serious debate about the fundamental role that freedom of speech has in liberal societies. After the attack on Charlie Hebdo however, the threat to democracy and one of its most fundamental values became obvious, and defending the right to free speech became a matter of principle. This is also evident from the mentioned Paris memorial march that took place four days after the attack on Charlie Hebdo, where politicians from around the world participated to show their support for free speech and the victims who had lost their lives using their right to press freedom.35 The statements uttered to the media by Norwegian politicians, but
also other world leaders attending the march, stood up as clear protectors of the right to free speech. This thesis is about how such views were expressed, the extent to which Norwegian politicians agreed or differed and whether their
views changed in the following year.
34 https://snl.no/karikaturstriden (Retrieved 20 February 2016)
I will look at the way Norwegian politicians expressed their views on free speech using eight major Norwegian newspapers: 1) Aftenposten 2) Dagsavisen 3) Dagbladet, 4) Dagens Næringsliv, 5) Klassekampen, 6) Morgenbladet, 7)
Verdens Gang (VG), and 8) Vårt Land. These newspapers are selected as they are
positioned differently in the Norwegian society when it comes to their main
agenda, politics and religion.
There are many politicians and political parties in Norway. The focus however will be on political leaders in the eight largest parties. A critical discourse analysis of politicians’ articulation on issues relating to free speech post the Charlie Hebdo attack in the selected newspapers, will provide a broad and, hopefully, interesting overview of debate in Norway. Based on this, the research questions are the following:
1. How much attention is given to freedom of speech linked to the Charlie Hebdo attack by Norwegian party leaders in national newspapers in the subsequent year?
2. What are the dominant discourses Norwegian party leaders use to articulate their views on free speech during the mentioned year?
3. Has the discourses used by the party leaders from the two biggest parties changed during the year, or does the understanding of freedom of expression remain mainly the same?
The first research question is meant to provide an overview. It covers all articles addressing free speech in relation to the Charlie Hebdo attack by the nine party leaders. The second question is meant to capture what opinions and attitudes are most dominant, and what discourse that is hegemonic in the Norwegian free speech debate following the attack. To answer the third research question, an in-depth analysis of the content will be conducted. This makes it necessary to reduce the amount of texts, and the focus will therefore be on two key party leaders, the Labour Party Leader Jonas Gahr Støre, and the Conservative Party Leader Erna Solberg who is also Prime Minister. A more detailed qualitative
analysis makes it possible to capture the details and nuances in the various discourses, and identify discursive battles and how they evolve over time.
1.8 The context of the study: Free speech and party profiles in Norway The following is a brief description of the context for the Norwegian debate following the Charlie Hebdo attack. The discourse relates to traditional discussion about the right to free speech, while party profiles are likely to influence how party leaders articulate their views. Norway is perceived as a very liberal country, also when compared also to many other western countries, and this makes it an interesting context for the study of the right to free speech. Is this reflected in the discourses? Or are there limitations on the right to free expression and the right to offend? This I will get back to later, but first a brief presentation of the Norwegian context. Norway was one of the first countries in the world with a radical liberal constitution (Article 100) with a radical right to free speech in 1814, after France (1789, Article 11) and USA (1791, Article 3). The Norwegian Constitution’s freedom of speech Article 100 says that "freedom of expression should take
place”.36 Also, freedom of expression and freedom of press in Norway have a
strong legal support in addition to the constitution. Freedom of press is related to the separation of powers principle, and the press acts as a fourth state power next to the government, courts and public assembly.37 In Norway democracy and
free speech gained a strong position much earlier than in the other Nordic countries. An important reason for this was that Norway did not have a nobility tradition, and the capitalist class was weak. For several hundred years Norway had been in a union with Denmark (until 1814) and later Sweden (until 1905).38
The struggle for democracy and free speech was closely linked to the struggle for national independence. However, such rights strengthened gradually. They were not a result of major political conflicts or confrontations with religious
36 https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1814-05-17#KAPITTEL_5 (Retrieved 10 June 2016) 37 http://ndla.no/nb/node/79254 (Retrieved 20 June 2016)
authorities, like in France. 39 Consequently, free speech and democracy have a
strong standing in Norwegian society.
Even if free speech is a basic value and a right, it is not absolute. There are some restrictions – also legal. Such limitations include threats, violation of privacy, discrimination and hateful utterances.40 In many countries, including
Norway, blasphemy has been punishable by law. Norway introduced such a paragraph in 1902 (§ 142). In 2005, in conjunction with the introduction of the new Norwegian Penal Code, it was decided to abolish the blasphemy paragraph (§ 142). The new Penal code was decided to take effect 1 October 2015, but after the Charlie Hebdo attack 7 January 2015, two parliament members, Anders B. Werp and Jan Arild Ellingsen, took immediate measure. “Freedom of speech is threatened and we must show that we stand up for this right”, Ellingsen concluded, sending in a proposal to abolish the blasphemy law 10 February 2015. 6 May 2015 the blasphemy paragraph was urgently removed.41 The
argument was that religion neither can nor should be protected against offending behaviour. And, in addition, because blasphemous utterances may be important as social and political criticism, the law now protects it.42
Political ideologies, core values and main issues represent an interesting background when analysing the free speech debate in Norway. The top leaders of the political parties are key actors in the public discourse, although they may fill such roles in different ways. They are important opinion leaders with the ability to influence how issues are defined in the public sphere. They help make sense of and define new events, and redefine or refine recurrent issues. The debate on free speech is a well-known public issue, but Charlie Hebdo creates a new context with a need for clarification and testing of established boundaries. This provides party leaders with a certain freedom to manoeuvre, but their utterances are likely to reflect values and priorities laid down in party traditions.
Here is a quick introduction to the various parties' ideologies, purposes and core issues. However, issue of free speech does not follow the dominant “right, left, middle” axis. 39 https://snl.no/Den_franske_revolusjon (Retrieved 19 June 2016) 40 https://snl.no/diskriminerende_ytringer (Retrieved 28 May 2016) 41 http://www.vl.no/nyhet/na-er-det-lov-a-hane-andres-tro-1.355843 (Retrieved29 May 2016) 42 https://snl.no/blasfemi (Retrieved 16 May 2016)
The Labour Party
The Labour Party was founded in 1887. Their slogan is “everyone shall take part”.43 Like other social democratic parties, the Labour Party is rooted in
socialist intellectual traditions. 44 Socialism is a political ideology that is oriented
toward equality between all members of society, and toward the creation of a classless or egalitarian community.45 The last decades the Labour Party has been
an active proponent for integration of immigrants in social and political life. The Labour Party’s statutes, adopted at the Labour Party’s National Conference in 2015, says that the party’s purpose is the following: 46
The Norwegian Labour Party will create a just society that guarantees that all human beings are equal. We build on the values of freedom, equality and solidarity. We want a world without war and poverty, where free and equal people have influence on their living conditions, where people live in harmony with nature, and where capitalist exploitation is combatted.
The Conservative Party
The Conservative Party was founded in 1884 and is Norway’s second oldest political party. Erna Solberg is Party Leader and Prime Minister of Norway in the period of 2013-2017. In 2017 there will be a new parliamentary election. Historically the party has been defending liberal economic values and the rule of law. In relation to immigration, the party has been somewhat more restrictive than the Labour Party. The Conservative Party’s slogan in the parliamentary period 2013-2017 is “New ideas and better solutions.”47 Their four main issues
in this period are 1) creating safe workplaces, 2) knowledge in school, 3) quality and freedom of choice in health care, and 4) faster development of road and mass public transportation.48 43http://arbeiderpartiet.no (Retrieved 29 May 2016) 44 https://snl.no/Arbeiderpartiet (Retrieved 29 May 2016) 45 https://snl.no/sosialisme (Retrieved 17 March 2016) 46 http://arbeiderpartiet.no/file/download/8387/127676/file/vedtektene.pdf (Retrieved 11 January 2016) 47 http://www.hoyre.no/nb-no/aktuelt/arkiv/kort-om-høyre (Retrieved 26 May 2016) 48 http://www.hoyre.no/nb-no/aktuelt/arkiv/kort-om-høyre (Retrieved 26 May 2016)
The Progress Party
The Progress Party was founded in 1973. Their slogan under the parliamentarian period 2013-2017, is “help us to create an easier everyday life”.49 Their core issues this period are “freedom, safety, health and elderly care,
economy, transport and education”. 50 The party's ideology is a mix of right-wing
populism and traditional economic liberalism. 51 The party describes itself as a
“Liberal People's Party” (...) based on the Norwegian constitution, Norwegian and Western traditions and heritage, and on the basis of the Christian worldview and humanistic values”. 52 Since the late 1980s, the Progress party has
established itself as "the premier critic of immigration".53
The Christian Democratic Party
The Christian Democratic Party was founded in 1933 and is “a non-socialist centrist party, built on Christian values”. 54 The Party Leader is Knut Arild Hareide. Their slogan is “human dignity at the centre”.55 Their main issues are to
take better care of the young and the elderly, no Sunday open shops, international solidarity, culture and civil society as well as climate and the environment.56 The Christian Democratic Party’s core values reflect “(…)
Christian heritage and fundamental human rights”.57 To protect traditional
Norwegian moral values is the party’s main objective, which makes the party unique as it has “no distinct class roots and have therefore not a sharply defined economic or social profile”.58 49 https://frp.no (Retrieved 20 May 2016) 50 https://frp.no (Retrieved 20 May 2016) 51 https://snl.no/Fremskrittspartiet (Retrieved 20 May 2016) 52 https://frp.no/hva-vi-mener/prinsipp-og-handlingsprogram (Retrieved 16 May 2016) 53 https://snl.no/Fremskrittspartiet (Retrieved 20 May 2016) 54 https://snl.no/Kristelig_Folkeparti (Retrieved 1 May 2016) 55 https://krf.no/politikk/vare-hovedsaker/ (Retrieved 3 May 2016) 56 https://krf.no/politikk/vare-hovedsaker/ (Retrieved 3 May 2016) 57 https://krf.no/politikk/politisk-program/verdigrunnlag-og-ideologi/ ( Retrieved 3 May 2016) 58 https://snl.no/Kristelig_Folkeparti (Retrieved 1 May 2016)
The Centre Party
The Centre Party was founded in 1920. Trygve Slagsvold Vedum is Party Leader. As the name implies, the Centre Party is located at the centre of Norwegian politics and traditionally the view on social distribution has been somewhere in between the Norwegian Labour Party and the Conservative Party. 59 The Centre
Party’s main issues are regional policy and decentralization, and the party has strong ties to the farmers' movement in Norway.60 It has a restrictive view on
immigration. The Centre Party’s basic values are the following:61
(…) a society of free independent people with faith in their own abilities to take responsibility for their own lives, the community and the environment. Party humanity originates in Christian values and humanistic values in this spirit. Every human being is unique and irreplaceable, and respect for human dignity is paramount other values. The Liberal Party The Liberal Party is Norway´s oldest party, founded in 1884. Trine Skei Grande is Party Leader. The Liberal party is a social liberal party with a vision of “a social and liberal knowledge society where people have the freedom and opportunity to create their own path to a good life, and where we take responsibility for each other and the environment”.62 The party´s slogan is “people first”. 63 It has a
liberal view on immigration. The Liberal Party’s statute, enacted in 1981 and last revised in 2104, says that the Liberal Party “aims to gather people with a socially liberal worldview and to promote peace, progress and international cooperation in our country and in the world as a whole”. 64
The Liberal Party aims to gather people with a socially liberal worldview to promote peace and international cooperation, and for social, cultural and economic progress in our country and in the world as a whole, as well as through 59 https://snl.no/sentrum/politikk (Retrieved 5 April 2016) 60 https://snl.no/Senterpartiet (Retrieved 4 April 2016) 61 http://www.senterpartiet.no/verdigrunnlag/category15087.html (Retrieved 5 April 2016) 62 https://www.venstre.no/om/ (Retrieved 22 May 2016) 63 https://www.venstre.no/om/ (Retrieved 22 May 2016) 64 https://www.venstre.no/om/vedtekter/#§1.1 (Retrieved 24 May 2016)
information to increase understanding and interest in social issues, and working to get liberal people elected to the country's representative bodies. Socialist Left Party The Socialist Left Party was founded in 1975. Audun Lysbakken has been party leader since 2012. The Socialist Left Party aims for a socialist order in Norway and “wants to replace the capitalist system with a more democratic and sustainable economic system.”65 Through control of ownership, regulation and
economic instruments the party wants to “regulate and control the market and ensure a fair distribution of power and resources, prevent pollution and provide the basis for the individual's freedom”.66 It values international solidarity and is a proponent of a more liberal solidary immigration policy. The Green Party
The Green party was founded in 1988. 67 The Green Party has no party leader,
but a shared management between a female and male spokesperson, Hilde Opoku68 and Rasmus Hansson. 69 The Green Party’s statues, last revised in 2015,
proposes:70
(…) a humane society in ecological balance. The economy should be based on healthy ecological principles and promote peace and justice both locally and globally”. Vigorous communities, mainly based on local resources is a prerequisite for achieving the goal. The party’s slogan in the period of 2013-2017 is “Think. New. Vote. Green”. The Green Party is part of an international social movement of green parties focusing 65 https://snl.no/Sosialistisk_Venstreparti (Retrieved 8 May 2016) 66 https://www.sv.no/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1.-Et-Norge-som-deler-godene.pdf (Retrieved 6 May 2016) 67 https://www.mdg.no/om-oss/ (Retrieved 24 March 2016) 68 Opoku resigned from her position 8 April 2015 due to disagreements with Hansson on how the party should be managed. 69 https://www.mdg.no/om-oss/ (Retrieved 24 March 2016) 70
https://www.mdg.no/vedtekter/ (Retrieved 24 March 2016)
on ecological thinking, feminism, pacifism, grassroots democracy and cultural diversity. Protection of nature is given priority over further economic growth.71 1.9 Structure of the thesis The rest of this thesis will be structured in five main chapters: theory, method, presentation of findings, analysis, and conclusion.
The first presents the theoretical framework, starting with Fairclough’s critical discourse theory and method of analysis. This will be supplemented with democratic theory as discourse theory cannot stand alone, since there is a world outside the discourses that affect them (Jørgensen and Phillps 69). In addition, there is a brief explanation of the relationship between the media, politicians and the public. Free speech is a central value for Norwegian culture and debate, and free speech is a prerequisite for democracy. Thus I think democratic theory is a good theoretical supplement that can provide interesting background information and framing of the discursive practices. Fairclough’s three-dimensional model will provide a combined theoretical and methodological framework for the analysis. The specific methods include: 1. A presentation of the reasoning behind the selection of articles by leaders of the major political parties in Norway. 2. A selection and range of 165 of articles that form the basis for the analysis to be undertaken. 3. A query string that is used to extract the results I will later analyse. Thereafter I will present the findings of the quantitative analysis done by analysing the results that have come out of the 165 articles that have been selected for this study. I will first present the distribution of the number of articles that are obtained from studying selected Norwegian party leaders’ articulation of free speech in the chosen Norwegian newspapers. This will be the basis for the identification of main types of discourses. I found three main categories, 1. free speech as an absolute value, 2. free speech balanced by concern for those that can be offended, and 3. free speech with a right – almost
obligation to offend.
Then follows an in in depth analysis of the leaders of the two major
parties, the two most important opinion leaders in the Norwegian discourse on free speech. The in depth analysis also makes it possible to identify details and nuances in arguments, as well as developments over time.
In the concluding section, both the quantitative and qualitative findings will be discussed in the light of the theories presented earlier, to see how the material responds to previous research and the theories used. Finally, I will look at the results in order to draw a conclusion that responds specifically to the three research questions and how these answers relate to the theoretical framework.
2. Discourse theory
2.1 Three approachesDiscourse is defined as “a particular way of talking about and understanding the world” (Jørgensen & Phillips 1). There are three different theoretical approaches to discourse analysis, outlined by Marianne Winther Jørgensen and Louise Phillips in their book Discourse analysis as tool and method (2002): discursive psychology, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s discourse theory and Norman Fairclough’s critical discourse theory. These analytical approaches are different, but agree on the following main points (Jørgensen and Phillips 12):
• Language is not a reflection of pre-existing reality.
• Language is structured in patterns or discourses – there is not just one general system of meaning as in Saussurian structuralism, but a series of systems of discourses, whereby meanings can change from discourse to discourse.
• These discursive patterns are maintained and transformed in discursive practices.
• The maintenance and transformation of the patterns should therefore be explored through analysis of the specific contexts in which language is in action.
Discursive psychology theory focuses on psychological themes, such as how psychological phenomena are constructed, attended to, and understood in interaction through written and spoken language (Jørgensen and Phillips 96). Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theoretical approach is more oriented toward theory building. To them discourse is constitutive of the social, and therefore the whole society is composed of discourses that can be understood through discourse analysis (Jørgensen and Phillips 25). Fairclough, who I lean on in this thesis, has another view on this.
2.2 Fairclough’s critical discourse theory
Fairclough’s critical discourse theory primarily focuses on text, talk and other semiological systems, such as gestures and fashion (Jørgensen and Phillips 18). However, the social aspect of language use is most interesting for Fairclough. He acknowledges that there is a world outside the discursive, which is shaped and also shapes what we acknowledge as objective truths about the world around us. It is thus not only text and the discursive practice, but also the social practice that contribute to change what we perceive as truth (Jørgensen and Phillips 19).
He therefore disagrees with Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theoretical approach where discourse is constitutive of the social, as he separates the discursive from the non-discursive (Jørgensen and Phillips 62).
Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis is chosen as theoretical framework and as methodological approach, both because I agree with his “mild” form of social constructivism, and because I think this approach will fit the text oriented study best. According to Jørgensen and Phillips (62) critical discourse analysis, in contrast to the other two theories, “engages only in concrete, linguistic, textual analysis of language use in social interaction”. In addition, I like the fact that discourse theory and method is closely intertwined. It means that the procedures used to analyse the data are closely linked to the theoretical apparatus.
However, Fairclough´s critical discourse theory cannot stand alone since there, as mentioned, is a world outside the discourses that affects them (Jørgensen and Phillips 69). Therefore, I will supplement with democratic theory. I find this fruitful as the aim of critical discourse analysis is to shed light on ideological effects, the unequal power relations between social groups. Fairclough’s basic project is to promote a more democratic society through equality oriented and liberal discourses (Jørgensen and Phillips 64). Thus critical discourse approaches are not politically objective, but committed to social change. This reference to unequal power relations constitutes the “critical” part of critical discourse analysis (Jørgensen and Phillips 64).
In the following section I will present Fairclough’s definition of discourse and his three-dimensional model, which later will be the methodological framework when conducting critical discourse analysis.
Concepts and applications
Fairclough (1995b 135) defines discourse as “language conceived as social practice”. He applies the concept of discourse in three different ways (Jørgensen and Phillips 66):
1. Firstly, in the most abstract sense, discourse refers to language use as a social
practice.
2. Secondly, discourse is understood as the kind of language used within a
specific field, in this case in the political media discourse in Norway.
3. Thirdly, and the most concrete usage, discourse is used as a count noun (a discourse, the discourse, the discourses, discourses) referring to a way of
speaking which gives meaning to experiences from a particular perspective.
This concept refers to any discourse that can be distinguished from other discourses, for example discourses linked to a specific ideology or party. As mentioned, an important point in Fairclough’s approach is that discourse, in the field of critical discourse analysis, is in a dialectical relationship with other social dimensions (Jørgensen and Phillips 65). Another important term in Fairclough’s discourse approach is discourse order. This refers to “all the discourse types” used in a specific field (Jørgensen and Phillips 67-71). Discourse types consist of discourses and genres. A genre is particular language use which participates in, and constitutes part of a particular social practice (Jørgensen and Phillips 67): “In every discursive practice – that is, the production and consumption of text and talk – discourse types (discourses and genres) are used in particular ways” (Jørgensen and Phillips 67).
The communicative event
An important term in Fairclough’s approach is communicative event. This term in many ways sums up his main model and provides a prescription for analysis. According to Fairclough, communicative events do “not only reproduce orders of discourse, but can also change them through creative language” (Jørgensen and Phillips 71). This is what his model is about.
Figure 1. Fairclough’s three-dimensional model
Fairclough’s analytical framework consists of different concepts that are fused into a three-dimensional model (see Figure 1). He is a linguist, but he maintains that text analysis alone is not sufficient for analysis of discourse. By uniting linguistic understanding, social semiotics and micro/macro sociology, he creates his three-dimensional model with a broad approach to language and text related issues (Jørgensen and Phillips 65-66). In his view, every occurrence of language in a communicative event consists of three dimensions: 1) It is a text, 2) it is a discursive practice and 3) it is a social practice (Jørgensen and Phillips 68). Text is speech, writing, visual image or a combination of these (Jørgensen and Phillips 68). Discursive practice is the interaction process between actors and recipients of the text, i.e. the process of production and process of interpretation of text (Jørgensen and Phillips 68). Social practice, or social conditions of interpretation, refers to how the text, the institution and the individual is linked together in society, shaping and reshaping what is considered to be the truth about the world (Jørgensen and Phillips 65).
Central to Fairclough´s approach is that “discourse is an important form of social practice which both reproduces and changes knowledge, identities and social relations including power relations, and at the same time is also shaped by other social practices and structures” (Jørgensen and Phillips 65). However, as he distinguishes between the discursive and non-discursive, he takes into account that the social practice also consists of non-discursive elements that contribute to change. Another point is that that the “communicative event” and
“the order of discourse” have mutual influence on each other, that one is dependent on the other, and vice versa (Jørgensen and Phillips 71).
An analysis of a communicative event, in this case the Norwegian politicians’ articulation on free speech in various Norwegian newspapers, includes 1) analysis of the linguistic structure at the level of text, 2) analysis of the discourses and genres articulated in the process of text production and process of text interpretation in the discursive practice, and 3) reflections about whether the discursive practice reproduces or restructures the existing order of discourse and about “what consequences this has for the broader social practice” (Jørgensen and Phillips 69).
Investigation of discursive reproduction and change can be done through analysis of the discursive battles, the relations between different discourses’ struggle for hegemony, or dominance within an order of discourse and between different orders of discourse (Jørgensen and Phillips 73). In this case analysis of how various discourses are carried out within and between Norwegian political parties. The discourses of the main representatives from various parties are usually tied to party ideology. “Discourses can be more or less ideological, the ideological discourses being those that contribute to the maintenance and transformation of power relations” (Jørgensen and Phillips 75). Some discourses are more dominant than others, and in order to analyse this Fairclough’s concept of hegemony is fruitful. Fairclough explains the concept of hegemony in the following way (Jørgensen and Phillips 76):
[Hegemony] gives us the means by which to analyse how discursive practice is part of a larger social practice involving power relations: discursive practice can be seen as an aspect of hegemonic struggle that contributes to reproduction and transformation of the order of discourse of which it is part (and consequently of the existing power relations)
Thus the concept of hegemony connects discursive practice, social practice and power.
Another term in Fairclough’s approach is interdiscursivity, which occurs when different discourses and genres are articulated together in a new way in a
communicative event, thus changing the boundaries within the order of discourse and between different orders of discourse (Jørgensen and Phillips 73). Drawing on existing discourses in new ways creates change.
Democratic theory will be used to supplement the critical discourse mapping and analysis of the wider social practice. More specifically, two democracy models will be put forward, compared and discussed. 2.3 Democratic theory Five demands of ideal democracy According to the political theorist Robert A. Dahl (1989), an ideal democracy has five demands that must be met: 1) Participation, 2) equality in elections, 3) achieving reasoned insight, 4) citizens’ control of the agenda and 5) no elimination of the adult population. Dahl explains this further:
Participation “means that all citizens may have had the opportunity to submit their views on a policy before a policy is adopted. “Equality in election” means that all citizens have the same opportunity to vote and all votes should be counted
as equivalent when deciding on a policy to be settled.72 “Achieving reasoned
insight” means that all members have the same opportunity to be informed about alternative policies and consequences within a reasonable time frame. “Alternative
sources of insight must be protected”.73 “Control of the agenda”, means that the
“citizens must have the special opportunity to decide which cases are being put on the agenda”. “No elimination of adults” means that all adults, at least those with permanent residence and thus subject to the countries laws, shall have full civil
rights contained in the four aforementioned.74
Together these five criteria will create political equality and allow citizens to participate in the political debate. However, no government has ever fully met
72 https://www.martinschultz.dk/opgaver/dahl.pdf (Retrieved 13 May 2016, page 1) 73 https://www.martinschultz.dk/opgaver/dahl.pdf (Retrieved 13 May 2016, page 1) 74 https://www.martinschultz.dk/opgaver/dahl.pdf (Retrieved 13 May 2016, page 1)
these criteria. Yet, they are useful standards for measuring democratically governed countries’ results and opportunities.75 Free speech and the media In this study, the focus is on the relationship between free speech and media, and to what extent and how this may influence the ability to achieve what Dahl calls “reasoned insight”. In liberal democratic societies politicians and the media play a key role, and to be legitimate they have to base their discourse in fundamental principles of democracy. However, there are different perspectives on what should characterize a democratic discourse. Håkon Larsen (324-325) identifies two discourses that appear relevant to the subject of this thesis. They are both models of deliberative democracy, sharing its values and objectives, but they differ with respect to what the nature of such processes should be.
One perspective emphasizes rationality, reason and an orientation towards facts, the future and the wellbeing of others (Offe and Preuss 1991 156-57). Jürgen Habermas ([1966] 1999) calls this version of deliberative democracy
discursive democracy. A well-functioning public discourse is viewed as a
pre-condition for this kind of democracy. The media has a central role in communicating issues to the general public. The media do not control public opinion, but they do promote an agenda, select and frame presentation of issues and serve as “communication channels” for politicians as well as other opinion leaders. The media agenda emphasizes issues, the publics’ agenda reveals their issues of concern, and the politicians’ agenda tells what issues they prioritize. 76
These are the three main actors in the battle for the social agenda. The media creates the public space for debate, plus “opportunity for the many to participate in relevant society-wide processes of self-government”, and “publicity is also essential to a fair and efficient judicial system” (McQuail 5-6). Thus this provides an important basis for being able to look further at how politicians articulate free speech in the media. The political attitudes the media articulates, influence what 75 https://www.martinschultz.dk/opgaver/dahl.pdf (Retrieved 13 May, page 2) 76 https://tidsskrift.dk/index.php/politica/article/view/9032/17062 (Retrieved 30 January 2016)
political issues the voters are most concerned about.77 Consequently, the media
has an important influence on public opinions. Discursive democracy is a framework for dialogue, but within a shared set of assumption based on rational reasoning and facts. The ideal is to achieve an enlightened consensus, in this case an enlightened consensus on free speech.
Another perspective on deliberative democracy is called the pluralist
model (Mouffe 2005a, 2005b, Mouffe and Laclau 2001). In contrast to the first
model, it emphasizes and celebrates the expression of differences, conflicts, power and dissent. In this model there is also room for expressive statements – emotions (Larsen 322-323). The ideal is not to achieve a consensus that covers the society as a whole, but create different public spaces, and in this lies the potential for dissent to be expressed.
In Norway, as in all Scandinavian countries, political discourse has a consensus orientation. This does not mean that there are no conflicts or controversies, but most of the time debates are characterized by measured arguments and a search for broad solutions. Such consensus oriented discourses stand in strong contrast to countries where political debate is more conflict oriented and where participant treat each other as adversaries with little room for compromise. The ongoing presidential campaign in the US is a good example of that. However, despite such differences in discourse practices, all Western countries share some basic values of democracy and free speech. The attack on
Charlie Hebdo, as well as the cartoon controversy and other terrorist attacks,
represent acts that challenge these basic values by using violence and terror to suppress and undermine free speech. Such actions are not only unacceptable in Western countries, but almost anywhere.
The question here is how Norwegian party leaders react to such challenges as part of an ongoing debate, not least about immigration and integration.
77 https://tidsskrift.dk/index.php/politica/article/view/9032/17062 (Retrieved 30 January
3. Methodological approach
Fairclough’s critical discourse theory will, as described in the previous chapter, be the methodological framework for analysing the free speech debate in Norway and answering the three research questions: 1) how much attention Norwegian party leaders has given to free speech linked to the Charlie Hebdo attack in national newspapers, 2) what main discourses they use to articulate free speech, and 3) if the discourses used by the party leaders from the two major parties in Norway has changed during the year following the Charlie
Hebdo attack. A presentation of the research design will now follow.
3.1 Selection of time frame
The time frame is set from the day of the Charlie Hebdo attack, 7 January 2015, till the one-year anniversary of the attack 7 January 2016. The party leaders have presumably given extra thought and attention to Charlie Hebdo and free speech in memory of the victims on the commemoration of the Charlie Hebdo shooting. If so, their free speech statements are both interesting and important to include in this study, hence the specific time frame. The idea is to give an overview of the variation in attention (amount of articles) in the selected newspapers on free speech linked to the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
3.2 Selection of political parties and party leaders
The analysis is, as mentioned earlier, centred on the eight political parties, and their party leaders, represented in the Norwegian Parliament during the governmental period 2013-2017, which covers the timeframe set for this study. The parties and their leaders are the following: 1) the Labour Party and Jonas Gahr Støre, 2) the Conservative Party and Erna Solberg, 3) the Progress Party and Siv Jensen, 4) the Christian Democratic Party and Knut Arild Hareide, 5) the Centre Party and Trygve Slagsvold Vedum, 6) the Liberal Party and Trine Skei Grande, 7) the Socialist Left Party and Audun Lysbakken and 8) the Green Party lead by the two spokespeople Rasmus Hansson and Hilde Opoku. These are the most influential parties and politicians in Norwegian politics during this period. Table 1 shows the number of elected representatives to Parliament divided
