The 7^th of this month marked two years to the day since two gunmen walked into the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris and murdered twelve people. This period also therefore marks the second anniversary of the period of about an hour during which much of the free world proclaimed itself to be “Charlie” and attempted, by walking through the street, standing for moments of silence or re-tweeting the hashtag “Je Suis Charlie” to show the whole world that freedom cannot be suppressed and that the pen is mightier than the Kalashnikov.

So two years on is a good time to take stock of the situation. How did that go? Did all those “Je Suis” statements amount to anything more than a blip on the Twitter-sphere? Anyone trying to answer such a question might start by looking at the condition of the journal everyone was so concerned about. How has it fared in the two years since most of its senior editorial staff were gunned down by the blasphemy police?

A Paris rally on January 11, 2015, after the Charlie Hebdo attack, featuring “Je Suis Charlie” signs. (Image source: Olivier Ortelpa/Wikimedia Commons)

Not well, if a test of the magazine’s wellbeing is whether it would be willing to repeat the “crime” for which it was attacked. Six months after the slaughter, in July 2015, the new editor of the publication, Laurent Sourisseau, announced that Charlie Hebdo would no longer publish depictions of the Prophet of Islam. Charlie Hebdo had, he said, “done its job” and “defended the right to caricature.” It had published more Muhammad cartoons in the issue immediately after the mass murder at their offices and since. But, he said, they did not need to keep on doing so. Few people could have berated him and his colleagues for such a decision. When just about every other magazine in the free world fails to uphold the values of free speech and the right to caricature and offend, who could expect a group of cartoonists and writers who have already paid such a high price to keep holding the line of such freedoms single-handed?

Now, at the second anniversary of the atrocity, one of the magazine’s most prominent figures, Zineb El Rhazoui, has announced that she is leaving the magazine. El Rhazoui, who has been described as “the most protected woman in France” because of the security detail she receives from the French state, has announced that Charlie Hebdo has gone “soft” on Islamic radicalism. She told Agence France-Presse that “Charlie Hebdo died on [7 January 2015].” The magazine had previously had a “capacity to carry the torch of irreverence and absolute liberty” she said. “Freedom at any cost is what I loved about Charlie Hebdo, where I worked through great adversity.’

Of course, El Rhazoui is an unusual person. And a scarce one in twenty-first century Europe. Which is why she needs the security detail. Most of the people who said they cared about the right to say what they wanted when they wanted, about everything and anything — including one particularly stern and unamused religion — were willing to walk the walk: that is, they were willing to walk through Paris with a pencil in the air. Or they were willing to talk the talk, proclaiming “Je Suis Charlie.” But almost no one really meant it. If they had, then — as Mark Steyn pointed out — those crowds in Paris would not have been parading through the streets holding pencils, but holding cartoons of Mohammed. “You’re going to have to get us all” would have been the message.

And ditto the leaders. If President François Hollande and Chancellor Angela Merkel had really believed in standing up for freedom of expression, then instead of walking arm-in-arm through Paris together with such an inappropriate figure as Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, they would have held up covers of Charlie Hebdo and said: “This is what a free society looks like and this is what we back: everyone, political leaders, gods, prophets, the lot can be satirised, and if you do not like it then you should hop off to whatever unenlightened hell-hole you dream of. But Europe is not the continent for you.”

Instead, in the two years since those gestures, European society went quiet. Of course, there have been regular opportunities to display the modern idea of virtue, often using Charlie Hebdo as the punching bag. Since being alerted to the existence of the magazine by the gunmen, the censorious types who now fill our societies (and who probably do not even buy or read magazines) nevertheless regularly send out social media messages objecting to things to which they have been alerted within the magazine.

So it is that a rude and satirical magazine has found itself repeatedly judged by the humourless morality police of our day and often deemed to be insufficiently reverential about various world events. A Charlie Hebdo cartoon about the Cologne New Year’s Eve sexual assaults was deemed in poor taste. Elsewhere, the publication’s response to an earthquake in Italy failed to hit the single acceptable note in the eyes of some non-readers. Likewise the crash of a Russian jet and other stories that were considered to lack appropriate piety.

Meantime, we are in a situation, as the British author Kenan Malik said of the period after the Satanic Verses affair, of having “internalised” the atrocity. The entire world press — perhaps especially, in free countries — has internalised what happened at Charlie Hebdo, and instead of standing united has decided, quietly and in the privacy of their own offices, never to risk something like that ever happening to them again. This new submission to Islamist terrorist demands is possibly why, in 2016, when an athlete with no involvement in politics, religion or satire was caught doing something that might have been seen as less than fully respectful of Islam, there was no one around to defend him. Even the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, asked in the House of Commons to stand up for the right of an athlete not to have his career destroyed because of one fleeting, drunken joke, equivocated:

“This is a balance that we need to find. We value freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this country — that is absolutely essential in underpinning our democracy.

“But we also value tolerance to others. We also value tolerance in relation to religions. This is one of the issues that we have looked at in the counter-extremism strategy that the Government has produced.

“I think we need to ensure that yes it is right that people can have that freedom of expression, but in doing so that right has a responsibility too — and that is a responsibility to recognise the importance of tolerance to others.”

For the last two years, we have learned for certain that any such tolerance is a one-way street. Our societies had been walking up it. But from the other direction came the Kalashnikov brigade who only had to fire once; in the face of it, the whole civilised world chose to U-turn and run back the other way. Allah’s blasphemy police would be foolish not to push the advantage that such capitulation gives their cause over the months and years ahead.

Douglas Murray, British author, commentator and public affairs analyst, is based in London, England.

A few years ago, a sitting president of Nigeria was accused of condoning corrupt activities, and as a result, the nation lost tens of billions of dollars. When Boko Haram seized an area the size of Belgium in northeastern Nigeria, U.S. President Barack Obama said that the United States would not sell arms to Nigeria because of the Leahy Law, which prohibits the U.S. from providing military assistance to foreign militaries that violate human rights with impunity.

Thankfully, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with the political actors in Nigeria ahead of its 2015 elections, and repeated the position of the United States on the importance of having a peaceful election and transition. This visible concern in no small measure helped in a fair political contest and transition. This is the enviable position of awe in which the United States of America was held.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with newly sworn-in Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari in Abuja, Nigeria, on May 29, 2015. (Image source: U.S. State Department)

There is great anxiety among Africans who are peace-loving, and who care about democracy and human rights, that after the U.S. presidential election next month, this concern for people who care about democratic values and human rights might stop. In previous U.S. presidential elections, all the candidates showed their understanding of international relations. The current U.S. presidential campaign, apart from Mexico, Russia or the Clinton emails scandal, has been overshadowed mainly by domestic issues. You hardly hear about Africa.

The present election campaign has sidestepped Africa despite its challenges and opportunities. It is helpful to have the strategic Camp Lemonnier base in Djibouti near the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden to contain and decimate Al-Shabaab in the horn of Africa and to obstruct the movement of arms and sharing of intelligence between Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram (now Islamic State in West African Province). But we also need America’s leadership. There is simply no other free country that can adequately provide it.

The understanding in Africa now is that the United States is showing signs of feeling over-burdened with taking the lead role in world affairs. But the implication of this abdication is immensely dangerous. Such a posture means that when regional organizations such as the African Union, ECOWAS etc. fail, for any reason, to maintain peace in the continent, whom do we look up to? Who will be there for us to “speak softly and carry a big stick,” where and when it is necessary?

The ongoing political developments in the U.S. are being keenly observed with even more than the mixed feelings that greeted Brexit. Brexit felt like an exit by a powerful member from an interest club, where its interests were not well-defined, safeguarded or guaranteed. The political trend in the U.S. seems like a call to the leadership and the citizenry to look again the list of its friends and adversaries with a view to pruning it. But most importantly to take on lesser role as a leader of world affairs — to become less collaborative and have fewer partnerships.

America no longer looks like the country that extended its soft power to Western Europe, in the form of the Marshall Plan, shortly after the Second World War. Was this the same United States that made its hard power felt to rescue the free world and ensure that it remained free? A country that closed ranks about eight years ago to elect an American of African descent as the president should be succeeded by a leader who understands that the stabilizing role of the U.S. is needed now more than ever.

Regardless of who emerges as the next U.S. president, Africa will wish to see that the revalidation of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which has been extended until September 30, 2025, is not just mere rhetoric. Africa will wish to see, for example, that the garment trade agreement becomes all-encompassing, as happened during the presidency of George W. Bush, which doubled the size of the Traffic Quota Rate (TRQ) applicable to duty-free apparel exports. This considerably helped the countries of Namibia and Botswana. With oil prices on a downward trend, there is no better time for Africa to diversify its exports, and all the more reason why bilateral deals such as the Bi-National Commission between Nigeria and United States must work. At the heart of this bilateral agreement are security cooperation, economic growth and development, and lastly governance and democracy. It is noteworthy to say that Nigeria has had five uninterrupted election cycles since 1999; the same is true in many parts of Africa. We are trying to make sure that Africa will fast be democratizing.

Therefore a country like the United States, which that has a distilled vision of freedom, should not find it difficult electing a leader that will dovetail such vision with the needs of the African continent.

Nuhu Othman is a Senior Consultant at Atta Zubairu & Associates, Abuja, Nigeria.

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired by President Donald Trump because she instructed the Justice Department lawyers not to defend Trump’s Executive Order regarding travel to the U.S. by people from certain Muslim countries. She is neither a hero, nor a villain. She made an honest mistake when she instructed the entire Justice Department not to defend President Trump’s wrong-headed executive order on immigration. The reasons she gave in her letter referred to matters beyond the scope of the attorney general. She criticized the order on policy grounds and said that it was not “right.”

She also referred to its possibly unconstitutionality and unlawful. Had she stuck to the latter two criteria she would have been on more solid ground, although perhaps wrong on the merits. But by interjecting issues of policy and directing the Justice Department not to defend any aspect of the order, she overstepped her bounds.

Former U.S. Acting Attorney General Sally Yates (left), and President Donald Trump. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)

An Attorney General, like any citizen, has the right to disagree with a presidential order, but unless it is clear that the order is unlawful, she has no authority to order the Justice Department to refuse to enforce it. This order is multi-faceted and complex. It raises serious constitutional and legal issues that deserved nuanced and calibrated consideration from the nation’s highest law officer. There are significant differences between the constitutional status of green card holders on the one hand, and potential visitors from another country who are seeking visas. Moreover, there are statutory issues in addition to constitutional ones. A blanket order to refuse to defend any part of the statute is overkill. If she strongly disagreed with the policies underlying the Order, she should have resigned in protest, and left it to others within the Justice Department to defend those parts of the Order that are legally defensible.

I, too, disagree, with the policy underlying the order, but I don’t immediately assume that any policy with which I disagree is automatically unconstitutional or unlawful.

The President has considerable constitutional authority to control entry into the United States by non-citizens and non-residents. Congress, too, has some degree of control over our borders. The precise relationship between presidential and congressional power has never been defined by the Supreme Court. A more responsible Attorney General would seek to analyze these complex issues before jumping into the political fire by a blanket refusal to defend any part of the order.

In addition to failing to do her duty as Attorney General, Sally Yates handed President Trump an underserved political victory. She gave him the power to control the situation by firing her, instead of herself maintaining control by resigning in protest. It is the President who emerges from this unnecessary confrontation with the undeserved status of hero among his constituents.

I do not know Sally Yates except by reputation. She is highly regarded as a career prosecutor and public servant. My criticism of her is not personal, but rather institutional. These are dangerous and delicate times, and anyone who wants to confront the newly elected president must do so with wisdom, nuance and calibration. She played directly into his hands by responding to an overbroad order with an overbroad response. President Trump has now appointed a new acting Attorney General who will defend the order, or at least those parts of it that are legally defensible. Any individual Justice Department official who feels uncomfortable defending this controversial order should be given the freedom by the Department to decline to participate in the case. There are plenty of good lawyers in the Department who would have no hesitation standing up in the courtroom and making the best ethically permissible argument in defense of the order. I have had many experiences with Justice Department lawyers who personally disagreed with the prosecutorial decision in particular cases, but who vigorously defended the government’s position.

Sally Yates did what she thought was right. In my view she was wrong. She should neither be lionized nor accused of betrayal. Nor should President Trump’s critics, and I include myself among them, accuse him of doing anything even remotely close to President Nixon’s infamous “Saturday night massacre.” Nixon fired the very officials who were seeking to prosecute him. That constituted a personal and unethical conflict of interest. President Trump fired Yates over policy differences. It may have been unwise for him to do so, but it was clearly within his authority.

Now we will see our adversarial system at work. Excellent and dedicated lawyers will continue to bring challenges throughout the country against this ill-advised executive order. Other excellent lawyers will defend the order vigorously in court. Ultimately the issue may come to the Supreme Court (with or without a full complement of Justices). That is the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work.

Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, is the author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law and Electile Dysfunction. A version of this article appeared in The Hill.

For all his claims to the contrary, there can be little doubt that Russian President Vladimir Putin will be taking a keen interest in the outcome of Britain’s historic referendum on its membership of the European Union on Thursday.

The Kremlin’s official line is that Moscow has no interest in whether the British people decide to leave or remain a member of the 28-state economic and political union. And in his first public comment on the vote last weekend. Mr Putin said the decision was “the business of the people of the UK,” even though he could not help having a gratuitous swipe at British Prime Minister David Cameron, accusing him of trying to “blackmail Europe” by calling the vote.

But even though the Kremlin’s official position is that it is observing a strict neutrality on the outcome, the reality is that there is nothing that would please Mr Putin more than a British vote in favour of Brexit.

Ever since he embarked on his aggressive military campaign to restore Russia to its former Soviet glory, Mr Putin has made no secret of his hostility to the EU. He deeply resents the EU’s successful integration of former Soviet satellite states such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, which he still regards as falling within Moscow’s traditional sphere of influence.

Indeed, it was the EU’s attempts to build a strategic partnership with Ukraine, another former Soviet satellite, that prompted Mr Putin’s illegal annexation of Crimea two years ago, as well as his continuing military intervention in eastern Ukraine. The Baltic States, which also celebrated their freedom from Soviet control when the Iron Curtain collapsed in 1989, have also been subjected to menacing intimidation by Russian forces.

Mr Putin believes that, if Britain leaves the EU, then the alliance will be less robust in confronting Moscow over its aggressive posture in Central Europe and the Baltics. Moscow is still subject to punitive sanctions imposed in response to its invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, which, together with the collapse in the global price of oil, have inflicted significant damage on the Russian economy.

But while the sanctions have helped to persuade Mr Putin to rein in his military adventurism in Europe, the sanctions are not universally popular among all EU member states. In particular, Germany and Italy, which have close trading ties with Moscow, have been lukewarm about maintaining the sanctions. It is mainly due to Britain’s hardline stance on the subject that EU policymakers have managed to summon the diplomatic backbone to keep the sanctions in place.

Britain’s strained relationship with Moscow dates back to the 2006 murder of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisoned with polonium during a meeting with Russian intelligence agents at a London hotel.

The British military has also taken a lead role in NATO’s robust response to Russian sabre-rattling in Central Europe, and has deployed a heavy-armoured battle group to the Polish border and fighter jets in the Balkans to deter further acts of Russian aggression.

But Mr Putin is badly mistaken if he believes that a British “leave” vote will result in Europe taking a less robust approach to Russian aggression. For a start, even if Britain does vote to leave the EU, it will still work with the EU, albeit as a separate diplomatic entity rather than having its voice submerged by the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy. And Britain outside the EU will be just as vigorous in opposing further acts of Russian aggression as it has been as a member of the EU.

Furthermore, NATO, rather than the EU, is the most important organization for keeping Moscow in its place. Apart from France, the only other European country with serious military clout is Britain, and Britain will continue to be a cornerstone of the transatlantic alliance, irrespective of how it votes in Thursday’s EU referendum.

Con Coughlin is Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor of the London Telegraph and author of Churchill’s First War (St Martin’s Press).