CHARLIE Hebdo strikes again. This time the French magazine that is desperately trying to cling onto the title of king of controversy published a cartoon of Aylan Kurdi, the drowned Syrian refugee, suggesting that had he grown up he would have been one of the sexual assaulters in Cologne, Germany, on New Year's Eve. 

Charlie Hebdo is supposedly taking a jab at the alleged link between the spate of sexual assaults during the New Year celebrations and the influx of migrants into Germany which in turn has reignited the refugee debate and put the spotlight on the 1.1 asylum seekers who entered the country last year. "Based on testimony from witnesses, the report from the Cologne police and descriptions by the federal police, it looks as if people with a migration background were almost exclusively responsible for the criminal acts," said Ralf Jaeger, interior minister from the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Hundreds of women have supposedly filed complaints of harassment against men who bear the appearance of a North African or an Arab. 

According to Charlie Hebdo, this is 'satire'. Apparently depicting a dead toddler -- washed up ashore a beach in Turkey -- as a future sex offender is supposed to drive home a point. One may wonder, what godforsaken point is Charlie Hebdo trying to make with what seems like character assassination and racism, the same logic one finds among the far-right? If the aim is to deliver a meaningful political statement, why do it in such a tasteless manner that could be misinterpreted as xenophobic and that seems to echo right-wing anti-migrant, anti-Arab rhetoric? Why confuse the masses if the supposed message of the cartoons is so righteous? And most importantly, why is a dead refugee child the object of mockery? 

Charlie Hebdo cartoon: “What would little Aylan have grown up to be? A groper in Germany.”

Just last year, Charlie Hebdo, keeping in line with its 'controversial' image, published a cartoon depicting Aylan Kurdi's dead body under the caption "So close to his goal…" A sign on the beach, with a character that resembles Ronald McDonald, says, "Promo! 2 kids menus for the price of one". Defenders of the cartoon said that it was meant to "mock the West's handling of the refugee crisis". Again, if the whole point is to highlight the role of world leaders in creating and failing to manage the refugee crisis, why on earth isn't David Cameron, François Hollande, Viktor Orban or Bashar al-Assad being turned into a caricature? Why is the lifeless body of a toddler who died trying to flee his war-torn homeland being satirised? 

Many have started to question whether or not Charlie Hebdo has a far-right political agenda -- one that is conveniently masked behind terms such as 'controversial', a term that the magazine has become synonymous with. If Charlie Hebdo does in fact have such anti-migrant, Islamophobic political leanings (which wouldn't be surprising given the terrorist attacks it came under last year), don't adjectives such as 'controversial' often used by the mainstream media only help disguise/minimise the dangerous motives behind its cartoons? If these are actual attempts to propagate toxic political views, we, along with the media, should probably stop calling Charlie Hebdo 'controversial' (a gross understatement) and call it out for what it is – a hateful tool of propaganda. 

This isn't the first time that the French magazine has raised the debate about 'freedom of speech' (a term that has become distorted, politicised, and self-serving). Why is the criticism and disapproval of the caricature of a dead Syrian refugee seen as a 'curb on the freedom of expression'? Are hate speech and free speech the same? But this is where Charlie Hebdo cleverly maneuvers its way out of this quagmire. Hiding behind the veil of 'satire', the magazine seems to steer clear of incriminating itself of propagating toxic political agenda. Let's also not forget that this is the same organisation that fired cartoonist Maurice Sinet for being anti-Semitic because he mocked a young Mr Sarkozy for converting to Judaism for money. So much for 'freedom of speech'. 

In an article titled "After Cologne, we can't let the bigots steal feminism" in New Statesman, Laurie Penny questions as to why violence against women isn't a much bigger deal when migrants and Muslims are involved as perpetrators of sexual assault. Despite the fact that one in three German women and 35 percent of those above the age of 15 (exceeding the EU average) have experienced physical and/or sexual violence, and around 40 percent of German women claim they have experienced unwanted touching or kissing (also higher than the EU average of 29 percent), why are we suddenly acting like violence against women in Germany didn't exist until the arrival of 'Arab-looking' migrants? This is not at all to trivialise the horrific sexual assault against women in Cologne, but can we stop pretending, as Laurie Penny so astutely points out, that the right wing suddenly cares about rape culture? The same fanatics who continuously attempt to police the woman's body -- restrict the right to abortion and deny women their full reproductive rights -- are suddenly raising a hue and cry about sexual assault because it pushes their agenda of anti-migrant policies. 

Since 2008, the clergy has been organising a march to restrict access to abortion with slogans like "No to euthanasia and abortion". Fundamentalist Christians, the right wing of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) and anti-feminist, racist offshoots of the anti-Islamic Pegida movement are some of its participants. By shamelessly capitalising on the interlink between the influx of migrants and the incident in Cologne in its latest cartoon depicting Aylan as a potential sex offender, Charlie Hebdo not only serves the interests of those like Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front who has warned France of the "giant migratory wave", but also endorses the Orientalist view that sees the West as 'superior' and 'more cultured' than the East, insinuating that 'savage' Middle Eastern men are more likely to sexually assault women than white men. 

As public outrage poured on social media over Charlie Hebdo's latest cartoon, the best responses were those that hit back with scenarios of Aylan growing up to be something much more different. Many posted a cartoon of Steve Jobs, whose father was a Syrian migrant, suggesting Aylan could have grown up to a "new international inventor". Queen Rania of Jordan joined in on the conversation, posting a cartoon on Twitter, saying, "Aylan could've been a doctor, a teacher, a loving parent…" 

But the only response worth remembering is that of the dead toddler's father who wept when he saw the cartoon of his son. "I appeal to this magazine and to the world, and urge everyone to respect the memory of all the dead children. Do not reopen the wounds of their loved ones as they continue to bleed," said Abdullah Kurdi, who will forever be haunted by the two-year-old's lifeless body.

The writer is a member of the Editorial team, The Daily Star.