Tag: Charlie Hebdo

Categories
Citizenship Constitutional Development Mediawatch

Expression is free

expression_akkuzaOn 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.

Categories
Constitutional Development Mediawatch

Blasphemy the redundant

blasphemy_akkuzaThe first edition of Charlie Hebdo since the unfortunate events of last week is out tomorrow. The world has been given a preview of the front page which depicts a tearful prophet holding up a placard with the “Je suis Charlie” slogan. The background is in green – the colour of Islam – and the title is “All is forgiven”. The plan is to distribute the special 16 page edition (3 million copies are being printed) in at least 25 countries. It has been translated into four languages, including Arabic.

There is still a major problem though. To many muslims the mere depiction of the prophet is blasphemous. Charlie Hebdo’s irreverent treatment may be shielded from blasphemy laws in most of France (see next paragraph why most and not all) but when it tries to go worldwide in places such as India the issue of blasphemy might be raised all over again.

In the Alsace-Lorraine region they have a minor problem. On paper, blasphemy is still illegal under an article inherited from the German Criminal Code of 1871 when the region was transferred from Germany to France in 1918. I say on paper because when the League for the Justice defence of Muslims tried to have the law applied before a French court the court declared that the blasphemy law had become redundant due to “desuetude” which in layman terms means non-use for a very long time.

The truth is that outside the worlds where sharia or religious laws infiltrate or are one with secular laws, there is no place for a law on blasphemy. It is redundant. This applies all the more strongly in most liberal democracies where the basic charter of fundamental rights or variants thereof are applicable. Just before the attacks on Charlie Hebdo a group of representatives of the major religions (curiously the word “cultes” is used in French) had petitioned Paris to abrogate what the Archbishop of Strasbourg described as “an obsolete law”.

Blasphemy is inherently inapplicable in a secular state. The difficulties abound especially when it comes to the forces of law and order who are supposed to perform on the spot assessments of what could or could not be blasphemous in order to eventually effect an arrest. Blasphemy is in fact not restricted to one religious belief by definition (even the Maltese law on blasphemy that subsists to this day extends protection to all approved religons). So how on earth can your average policeman, called upon to intervene on a supposed commission of an act of blasphemy , assess the situation without being extremely well versed in the tenets of each and every religion which could be offended?

In truth the issue of offense  – which is the other side of the coin of the freedom of expression and which could constitute the barrier or eventual limit to such expression – is sufficiently treated and dealt with in other, wider provisions that deal with that very freedom of expression. Blasphemy is redundant, useless and archaic.

The other problem faced by  Western Liberal Democracies (my capitals) is that they must be able to explain the register of rights and duties that are expected of citizens wanting to partake of their civilisation and society. These rights and duties are codified in rules that form the backbone of society and that everyone is expected to abide by. The rules are enacted by representatives of the people with the sovereign will  entrusted unto them in open elections. They are applied by the executive branch and interpreted by the judiciary. This civic process ensures that we live in a system of rule of law with clearly defined rights and protection. Cives Europaeus Summus ut Liberi Esse Possimus – we are citizens of Europe (read Western Liberal Democracy) and thus we are free.

In a Western Liberal Democracy you do not take up arms and kill somebody who has insulted you or your beliefs. You react using the tools, rights and laws that are as accessible to you as they are to others. That is what is meant by integration too. You can be a fanatical muslim, an orthodox christian or one of those insufferable atheists pouncing on anything religious at any opportunity. You are expected to behave like a model citizen in order to integrate in the society that welcomes all and gives them a myriad of freedoms so long as they do not hurt others.

It’s simple really. A basic set of tenets that both Yeshua of Nazareth and Mohamet might have subscribed to. It is a society that allows you to be strong in your beliefs while respecting those of others – no matter how irreverent they may seem in your eyes.

Ours is a society where to resort to violence, bullying or savagery in order to impose one’s views is abhorred. In fact it is considered blasphemous.

#jesuisciveseuropaeus

Categories
Mediawatch

Dear God (a letter from Charlie)

dear_god_akkuzaDear God,

It’s been a long time. It’s J’accuse speaking, but today and for a few more days to come you can call me Charlie. Excuse me if I don’t follow the protocols you dictated to/inspired the various prophets when it comes to addressing your divine self. It’s just that you have not been too present, have you? Still, I’m not using your name in vain because I needed to speak to you and it’s common usage to address someone using their name.

Anyway. You probably (some would say definitely) know what I am about to say and why I have re-opened this channel of communication. They’ve got hostages now. Yep, this morning. They got up (from what was surely not a comfortable sleep) hijacked a Peugeot and apparently have taken someone hostage. They’ve got kalashnikovs and a rocket-launcher for good measure. I don’t know if you’ve realised (technically you have) but they claim to be doing all this in your name.

Yep yours. And if this is not using your name in vain then I do not know what is. Sure, humankind has been doing things in your name for ages. Gott mit uns! Nobiscum Deus! We never learn. It’s also easier to blame the heavenly landlord especially when he has turned absentee. You see where I am going don’t you? Yes, I’m blaming you God.

According to the books and the prophets it was much simpler in the past. You got angry. You turned up in some burning bush or other manifestation and made sure that people understood how furious you were. Damn right. Pillars of fire, pestilences, storms, etc. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah. Ah those were the days. Patti chiari, amicizia lunga. No patronising intermediaries interpreting and executing. No Siree. It was you in all your glory. You saw, you disliked, you punished with gusto.

Where are those bygone days? Apparently after JC things went sort of awry. Gone was the God of Moses and Abraham and in stepped the intermediaries who “interpreted” your will and your laws. You went silent and your silent was deemed to be acquiescence. Chi tace acconsente. Oh yes we had a multitude of interpreters telling us about self-determination and control of one’s own destiny.

But there would always be the busybodies. In Maltese we say “a hundred men a hundred opinions” and Adonai do we know how bad opinions are when it comes to religion. Also the “men” section of humankind with all their pent up anger and sexual frustration (Freud came too late to explain) really endeavoured to turn all this into a hard time for everyone – especially the weak. Interpretations of your will and the ideas of those speaking in your name became more and more dubious – but you remained silent. Surely that meant they were right?

Even Ridley Scott got the wrong end of the stick when he revisited the story of your interaction with Moses. So little God, so many special effects and scientific explanations for plagues and storms. I promise God, Exodus as interpreted by Hollywood is a complete waste of time. By 2014 you became a cockney speaking little boy having a battle of wits with Batman (sorry, Christian Bale) as to who has the strongest power to sway a pharaohs opinion. See? We have forgotten how mighty your Word was. It’s been such a long time since the beginning. Too much absenteeism and the landlord’s tenants are running amok.

So yes. I blame you when two idiots with the IQ of a vegetable arm themselves to the teeth and wreak havoc in the onzieme arrondissement all the while claiming to do it in your name.

Really God, are Gabriel, Michael and the rest all on Sabbatical too? Wouldn’t one quick missive from the celestial levels -a little cherub – do the trick? Just whisper in their ears that Charb and Co. are really, really funny and that they too perform your will on earth by spreading smiles and keeping the right people on their toes. Because you too have a sense of humour and you like that kind of thing don’t you? How else do you explain the platypus and Maltese politicans?

Instead nada. We have silence. Don’t give me that storms nonsense. You know the type – there are people down here who claim that you send storms and other abominations to punish us for such sins as gay marriage. No cryptic messages. No rainbows or sandstorms. What we need is a good clear voice in the sky that reminds these freaks who are committing all sort of atrocities in your name that they are not on your side.

Really God. It’s that Simple.

Just say the Word.

regards,

Charlie.