‘You have freedom of speech but freedom after speech, I cannot guarantee that’. – Idi Amin. When this statement was made, Idi Amin was in every Western World authority’s black book. No matter how harsh the statement may sound, that is how it is, very different from the way it ought to be. That brings us to the Charlie Hebdo case; a very unfortunate one at that. On the morning of January 7th 2015, at about 11:30 local time, two terrorists Chérif Kouachi and Saïd Kouachi armed with assault rifles and other weapons forced their way into the offices of the satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris; firing up to 50 shots, initially killing 12 staff, 2 police officers and injuring 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to Al-Qaeda’s branch in Yemen, which took responsibility for the attack according to Le Monde Newspaper. Later on, Amedy Coulibaly murdered a policewoman near a Jewish school before going on to hold up a kosher supermarket, where he murdered four hostages. About 19 deaths, scores of injured civilians and law enforcement officers alike, destruction of property, a halt in economic activity, a threat to security, a threat to peace. At what cost? This raises questions as to why these murders took place, and if they can be prevented in the future. We must ask ourselves to what extent should freedom of speech be limited if it should be at all?
To put this into perspective, it is important to understand what kind of newspaper Charlie Hebdo is. It is a French satirical weekly magazine, featuring cartoons, reports, polemics, and jokes. Irreverent and stridently non-conformist in tone, the publication describes itself as above all secular and atheist (Reuters. Retrieved 20 January 2015). According to Megan Gibson in “The Provocative History of French Weekly Newspaper Charlie Hebdo”, Charlie Hebdo first appeared in 1970 as a successor to the Hara-Kiri magazine, which was banned for mocking the death of former French President Charles de Gaulle. In 1981 publication ceased, but the magazine was resurrected in 1992. The newspaper is known for its depiction of immoral cartoons of the prophet Mohammad and other religious leaders and deities. Charlie Hebdo has a long history of intentionally controversial and provocative cartoons and covers. These, for many years have provoked different reactions from its audience especially from the Muslim community which feels an insult on Mohamad is an insult on Allah and Islam as a whole judging from the suit filed by the Grand Mosque and the UOIF which reached the courts in February 2007. With this kind of History, one could conclude that the unfortunate events which took place in the early hours of November 2nd 2011, where the newspaper’s office in Paris was fire-bombed and its website hacked was just a prelude to what was to happen on January 7th of 2015.
Coming back to the issue of freedom of speech, it is important to know that it is a fundamental right and should be always be protected. More so, provocateurs like the cartoonist behind the Charlie Hebdo drawings expose the stupidity of the fundamentalists; these are people who take everything literally. They are incapable of multiple viewpoints. They are incapable of seeing that while their religion may be worthy of the deepest reverence, it is also true that most religions are kind of extremist and archaic. Satirists expose those who are incapable of laughing at themselves and teaches the rest of us that we probably should laugh at ourselves from time to time. However, we all have the obligation to say the right things responsibly for the good of our societies and while definitely not disrespecting anyone in the process. At the same time we must allow room for those creative and challenging folks who are uninhibited by good manners and taste.
To be honest – these cartoons are offensive to most people. Their satire was bad, and remains bad. Their satire was racist and still is. They should never have been drawn. Does that, therefore, mean that the staff of Charlie Hebdo deserved their fate? NO; definitely NOT. They did not deserve it. And their murder should be condemned strongly. It’s easy to stand up for freedom of expression when we agree with the view point being depicted or do not care about it one way or the other. It gets far trickier when we are called upon to defend the right of someone to say what offends us deeply – whether it’s about our religion, our beliefs, our families or our leaders. I totally agree with Pope Francis when he says “One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith. There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity … in freedom of expression there are limits.” Moreover, Pope Francis said en route to the Philippines that killing “in the name of God” is wrong, but it is also wrong to “provoke” people by belittling their religion. “One cannot make war (or) kill in the name of one’s own religion,” Indeed life is sacred and should be protected at all times. Killing, therefore in the name of religion is an aberration.
Freedom of speech! Who decides which speech should be protected under the freedom of expression clause and which shouldn’t? Just after millions of people including about 40 world leaders marched in support of Charlie Hebdo and freedom of speech, A French comedian was arrested for expressing the said right to freedom of speech; double standards or not? Dieudonne M’bala a French comedian was arrested on suspicion of glorifying terrorism after writing on Facebook that he felt like “Charlie Coulibaly”, a word play combining the widespread “I am Charlie” vigil slogan and the name of one of the three gunmen. Prosecutors launched an inquiry on Monday into the comment by M’bala, who has already faced accusations of anti-Semitism and of mocking the killing of U.S. reporter James Foley by Islamic State militants. He was detained for questioning and prosecutors said he would face trial according to Reuters. French daily Le Monde pointed out that freedom of speech was limited by French law, and did not extend to incitement, to hatred or racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia. Backing this up is Joshua Keating, a staff writer at Slate, who writes that freedom of speech is protected under French law, but as in several other European countries, there are a few more exceptions to that freedom than in the United States. France’s main piece of hate-speech legislation prohibits incitement to discrimination, hatred, or violence based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation. Additionally, a controversial terrorism law passed last year bans material that incites or glorifies terrorism. As the Dieudonné case shows, “authorities are taking that rule pretty seriously”, writes Keating. This can be seen as inconsistent as in 2007, the then editor of Charlie Hebdo, Philippe Val, was cleared of inciting hatred against Muslims for reprinting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. But loathsome as many of Dieudonné’s remarks are, there’s something ironic in the fact that a government whose leaders were marching last week in defense of the right to offensive expression are this week arresting people for it.
How does this affect world peace? Many people in France and the international community as a whole may out rightly disagree with me when I say the Charlie Hebdo Cartoons can be considered to be ‘Hate Speech’. Why? Because it is easier to use the banner of freedom of speech when the filth isn’t directed at you. Hate speech is speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. According to Nockleby, John T. (2000), hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. Using these definitions as a reference, can one understand how the Charlie Hebdo Cartoons were a defiant provocation which disturbed the peace of a group of people causing them to react accordingly as they sought to defend their beliefs. The result was a tragedy.
World peace is obviously affected by occurrences in Europe when events in France have the ability to ricochet all across the world, and especially in the African continent. According to Al Jazeera, dozens of angry protesters attacked the French Cultural Centre and three churches in Niger’s second biggest city in response to Charlie Hebdo’s latest cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, the head of the Centre has said. The city was thrown into chaos, lives were lost, property destroyed, peace was destroyed. Some have said that this wouldn’t have happened if the Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons had not been drawn.
There are thousands of other issues affecting the world today, throwing the world into chaos and war; therefore, hate speech in all its forms should be discouraged in the strongest way possible. Murder and terrorism will never be the solution to our problems. Acting responsibly with tolerance towards one another’s excesses will go a long way to promote understanding and peace. Freedom of speech cannot be used to legitimize hate speech, because when hate speech is allowed, there are is the possibility for violent tragedies like the one that occurred in France. If freedom of speech is about tolerance, then offensive materials cannot be understood as contributing to freedom within our societies. To build peace and to maintain peace, world leaders must discourage hateful speech and encourage positive dialogue and nonviolent means of resolving conflicts.
