On his way to the Philippines Pope Francis conceded yet another few comments with regards to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France. It’s the Pope speaking – don’t forget he was considered for a long time to be infallible. Bergoglio is a great communicator and has won back many sheep to the fold of Catholicism thanks to his attitude and humility. I don’t know if it is the euphoria of the moment or the relaxed atmosphere of a casual interview during a flight but Bergoglio’s qualification of the freedom of expression made me cringe.
“Imagine my assistant insulted my mother”, he said, “then he would be risking a punch.” Really Francis? Since when is that the standard Catholic answer? Whatever happened to turn the other cheek to begin with? But I am not here to tell Francis what his religion teaches as to how to react to violence or insult. What worries me is that there is little different between Bergoglio justifying a punch for an offence and an Imam in London claiming that the Charlie Hebdo journalists asked for it. It’s no different from the reaction in some quarters that called for a limit to the freedom of expression to be set at the prohibition of causing offence.
Right now it is tough for citizens of the nations that are run by the western democratic paradigm to reconcile their ideas of liberty with that of Charlie Hebdo’s freedom to insult and offend a cult. Can an opinion be damaging? Can it be allowed to be damaging? If I believe that stories like the immaculate conception and resurrection are absolute hogwash am I allowed to lampoon them in cartoon fashion? What does the freedom of expression say about that?
Well, in France the courts have already had to deal with this kind of question. There is a difference between the use of the freedom of expression to parody, mock and, yes, even offend on the one hand (which is allowed) and the use of the freedom of expression to incite hatred or call to violence. The reasoning is that nothing is sacred when it comes to the boundaries of freedom of expression. There are of course mechanisms to protect persons who feel damaged by another’s expression. You can see the right to protect against libel and calumny of course. But when it comes to mocking religious figures – there is no limit. Mock and be damned.
Why then are people arrested if they tweet or post on the internet in support of the attackers of Hebdo’s offices? Are they not expressing their opinion too? Well yes they are but they are also justifying the crimes by their acts. In France it is called “apology of terrorism”. It is seen as a step towards incitement to violence and hatred and that is why it is not allowed.
The difference is sophisticated. It requires a level of intellectual engagement that is not available to all. Living in a liberal democratic society requires that kind of sophistication. It takes a level of intellectual engagement to control the savage instinct of resorting to violence when one feels offended and instead to dismiss the efforts at lampooning as puerile schoolyard humour. Life in a western liberal democracy is not for everyone. Many would prefer to be shielded from offence by governments that censor and prevent caricature. Theirs is not the promised land of the west. They would prefer to be able to punch, flog, whip, punish a lampooner than simply look away and not take notice of anything that so deeply offends their sentiments.
They would resort to laws and bullying to silence where possible. If the law does not help them in that sense, if it is too liberal then they will exploit the weakness of the politically correct age and claim that this is about islamophobia, antisemitism, irreverent anticatholicism. “Je ne suis pas Charlie” they will tell you but they miss the point.
Because being Charlie does not mean having a predilection for infantile, sexually oriented humour and for easy (too easy) quips about prophets popes and saints. Being Charlie means having a sophisticated understanding of living in a society where others are free to express themselves in accordance to our charters and where the right kind of reaction is one of intellectual engagement not judicial or physical bullying and savagery.
Being Charlie means hearing yet another Yo Mama joke and not having the instinct to punch the joker in the face. Because being Charlie means understanding that the joke is always on you. And that’s as subjective as it can get.
3 replies on “Expression is free”
I will try to be brief to avoid sounding like a long rant.
To state there are no restrictions on freedom of expression is not only heretical from the religious and moral point of view but also from the legal and human rights point of view. As you certainly know most countries have laws providing for restrictions on freedom of expression. Even in France insults are punished under the crime of injure as they are in Malta and many other countries.
Now if there are laws which condemn hate speech and defamation why are members of a religion not protected from insults to their beliefs? There is no right or fundamental right to trample on the right or fundamental right of others. This would be a travesty of a right. That is unless you are advocating a free for all and lawless anarchy. However in a democracy the rights of everyone should be respected. Naturally freedom to discuss and express different views on religion should be protected. However offensive comments show a lack of respect and should not be tolerated in a democratic society. In this respect the Pope’s comments are not just Christian teachings but essentially plain common sense and have long been enshrined and codified in various legislative instruments. Turning the other cheek does not mean insults are acceptable but that one should should try to love the offendor and try to avoid retaliation.
Do you have a fundamental right to produce a pornographic video depicting St Theresa? No said the European Court of Human Rights.
Two words David. Straw Man.
And yes, mocking the virgin birth, mocking resurrection, mocking the papacyand mocking cults IS allowed by the freedom of expression. What is not allowed is reacting to such mockery with violence. It’s not a problem if you don’t like it. You can either not read it or move to countries where such mockery is not allowed. Most of North africa for example – as far as I know in different fora and under different circumstances you were an eager supporter of “push back” …. you might just jump on the same boat then.
As you probably know I am far from being an Islamic fundamentalist terrorism apologist and therefore roundly condemn all forms of terrorism. However my arguments remain and are espoused by many in this continent and elsewhere including your fellow blogger and constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos.
I also disagree with illegal immigration as many similarly do in this continent and in my native country. You mention North Africa but convenietly failed to mention the many countries and regions in Europe from Malta to Iceland which have similar laws to my stated views. I suggest you read articles 142 and 145 of the Luxembourg Criminal Code. You would then conclude then it is you and not I who need to change their country of residence.