Freedom of speech...When it's convenient

It may appear that this article has missed the boat somewhat concerning the whole Charlie Hebdo affair. It should not seem so, as I rather wanted to offer an opinion on the incident as a whole, the reverberations of which are still being felt, and will conceivably continue to do so. An incident whose development and ripple-effect has been covered and debated so heavily by the media because it is one that is so intimately linked with our institutions of media and news.

The facts: On the 7th January two armed men entered the Charlie Hebdo offices and proceeded with an execution which resulted in the death of 12 people and the needless residual deaths of another 5 people (8 if you count the gunmen involved, which I am sure many people will be more than willing not to) in three other incidents across Paris and France more widely.

The events in France over the past week or so will inevitably remind people of the controversy surrounding the Jylland-Posten’s decision to depict the Prophet Muhammed. I mention this because it introduces two points, namely one – should we be surprised again that, in simplified terms, satirists have deliberately pissed people off? Secondly, should we be surprised at the reaction? The answers are no and yes, respectively. It is the satirist’s job and, as will be show, the right of every human – man, woman and child regardless of religio-political standing, to be afforded the freedom of speech. Will Self in a thoughtful piece for ‘Vice’ has commented firstly as to whether the controversial ‘Muhammed cover’ was indeed even funny or necessary, however I believe this misses the point while introducing another one. Charlie Hebdo, as with anyone, should be allowed to say and print what they like – the paradoxical repression of free speech which has followed such an act must though, as Will Self suggest, be scrutinised as to why offense is caused and if it can be solved.

Like Self says, there are distinctions that must be made here. These acts, if this is not pedantic, were perpetrated by terrorists who happened to be Muslim, not Muslim terrorists. To explain, this was an act of hatred fuelled by fundamentalism – a guilt that all religions have at some time or another carried the burden of. The Kouachi brothers are not representative of 1.6billion Muslims despite the apparent rise in violent terror attacks, so-called, in the name of Islam. But in the wake of atrocity, springs of humanity have emerged – the #jesuischarlie campaign and shows of solidarity across France and the world. Yet, equally this works both ways in that while were not typical in their beliefs and actions, they do still account for a proportion of Muslim thought – a contention I believe Rupert Murdoch (if while doing so, showing his true side) did not state clearly enough. You cannot say they were representative or everyone, but they were also not representative of no one – something we are often too cowardly to say.

To return to my distinction, one which I think is indeed vast as the umbrella term of terrorism is often too readily employed, it must still be noted that murder is not acceptable. This is a distinction we must collectively make to ensure, in the same way that all patriots and white inhabitants of England are not pegged as EDL members and right-wing fascists; that we do not confuse extremism as representative. In relating this point to Question Timewhich just the other night featured questions regarding the Hebdo massacre and whether increased surveillance might act as a preventative to terror acts, this distinction is a vast one – unlike the distinction the floundering David Starkey tried to make between seducing and grooming from beneath a proverbial pile of publicity shit where he is situated as a bit racist and a bit rapey. Medhi Hassan, on the other hand, stood firm and appeared knowledgeable in the debate and has previously stated that ‘anger…is not an excuse for extremism’.

To get back to the notion of freedom of speech in France, blasphemy has not for a long time been illegal. What is illegal however, is the inciting of hatred which is where the distinction in the Charlie Hebdo case gravitates towards. Simply put, did they cartoonists meaningfully incite hate? Does the publication of the latest Charlie Hebdo issue abroad and translated highlight a defiant stance of the right to freedom of speech (even when considering the potentially mortal price one can pay for it) or is it simply further antagonising and deliberate refusal to respect the potentially incendiary nature of offense, direct or indirect (as the French law states as illegal)?

Pope John Paul II stated in a recent interview, almost the sum total of “they had it coming”. Musing somewhat comically that if somewhat insulted his mother a punch awaited (I needn’t explain the humour of the actual Pope asking what you said about his Mum). This appears a lot more insidious however, when considering that this is a man who does speak for a large proportion of the religious world and that he is talking, at the end of the day, about the deaths of 12 people. If we have the right to freedom of speech we have the right, too, to not fearing for the implications. (J.P’s divisive stance may be calculated when considering he has been the brunt of Hebdo’s satire previously).

The most interesting point that I believe was brought out in the section of Question Time concerning this issue was – why publicise terrorists? It may seem a contentious point when considering that this attack focused on the very publication of something. But it raises an interesting point as to why martyr, publicise and evoke speech which fundamentally invokes hatred (such as ISIS recruit and beheading videos) while simultaneously considering the right to deny an image which may or may not obliquely incite hatred. It seems here that freedom of speech is becoming a two way street which traffic flowing rather one-sidedly.

Yet, we must view this incident in a secular light, as I have mentioned.

As the members of Charlie Hebdo stated in their most recent issue, ‘the first victims of Islamic fascism are the Muslims’. This is, literally, most apparent in the case of Ahmed Merabat, the Muslim Police officer one who ‘died to defend ideas which may not even have been their own’ – a shining example not of a Muslim, but simply of a human being. Thus, we must look secularly at these incidents and separate hate as the root cause – a point I have vocalised for some time, which is somewhat reassuring to see seconded in the media of late by people such as Bill Maher and Russell Brand who we feel have more weight in the global debate than we.

The freedom of speech versus downright hateful vitriol argument is perhaps best focused in on Fox News and recent issues. Indeed, while we may have the freedom of speech it does not necessarily mean that you have to sprout whatever repressed hate you may be festering. This is most true of Jeanine Pirro who responded to the attacks that “we need to kill them”. The biggest problem here, as Russell Brand maniacally riffs off, is the classic language of “us” and “them”. Who are “them”, when considering the figure of 1.6billion Muslims.        It’s not enough to discount her views when realising her past of vitriolic reporting. Again Steve Emerson with his hilarious and terrifying outbreak that Birmingham is a “Muslim-only” city just completes the Fox News trifecta when considering Murdoch’s twitter outbursts. But, if they have the fundamental right to say it, do they have the right or do they need to physically say it?

Although, if we give this inch then we surely concede to, what Salman Rushdie has termed, the “…but” idea. Freedom of speech…but, and Rushdie is no stranger to both Islam and the freedom of speech (having had fatwa declared on him). This is noticeable in general all-round horrible person Anjem Choudary’s reaction to the Charlie Hebdo shootings, stating that ‘Freedom of expression does not extend to insulting the Prophets of Allah’. By this logic, that freedom of speech doesn’t work both ways – what claim (if this was representative as I’m sure, as I have emphasised, it is not) would Islam have to media coverage and the right to say and have those exact words published on online newspaper sites. A fundamentalist who is fundamentally wrong in this case, but it’s hard to argue with bombastic determinism. The repression of free speech has similarly been flaunted in the flogging of blogger Raif Badawi for his secularist blog and in trying to impose a minute’s silence for the Hebdo victims in schools across France, notably ones with large percentages of Muslim students. These double standards concerning free speech were also apparent in the arrest of notoriously provocative comedian Dieudonné for his reaction to the Hebdo attack, for saying on Facebook ‘Je Suis Coulibaly’ (the name of the gunman who held up a Kosher food store). Maybe our concept of free speech is not so infallible after all.

Does the fight for the maintenance of true freedom of speech need to be a case of dying on our feet or living on our knees?

The great thing is I can say these things with only the fear of fitting reprimanding, not unlawful abuse. Moreover, anyone can tell me why I’m wrong. To end, Evelyn Beatrice Hall said, in summation of Voltaire’s musings on free speech – often wrongly accredited to the man himself:

‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’

Sadly, we are here faced with an instance of two men, claiming to speak for a polyphonic and highly diverse 1.6 billion people, defending to both their and other’s deaths the suppression of this right.

#charliehebdo #archive #politics