Je ne suis pas sûr si je suis Charlie

Since the atrocities in Paris this week, beginning with the attack at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, there has been much talk of free speech, and a sudden and impassioned public uprising to defend it. Before I say anything else, of course I wish to retain all of the freedoms we enjoy, and I condemn the actions of the gunmen regardless of their race, religion or cause. However, I have really struggled with two elements of this story bringing up a moral dilemma for me: Firstly, that nobody in Europe truly has freedom of speech while apparently deluding themselves that they do; and secondly, that I’m not always sure we should be trusted with total freedom when we so often abuse the forms of public expression available to us.

Free speech is of course, an essential civil liberty in the west. It’s changed the world several times over, caused revolutions, wars, political and constitutional changes, etc, etc, etc, and allowed art and media to provide powerful reflections of the past and present societies in which they were created. It’s something we almost take for granted, it’s so inbuilt in our values. Indeed, it’s the first amendment on the US bill of rights, only marred by the fact that second on the list is the right to bear arms (presumably to use against those whose opinions differ to your own).

My point is, that while it’s a fine libertarian ideal to uphold and defend, we’ve never had freedom of speech in the west anyway. Freedom is an absolute. We can’t be a little bit free - either we are, or we’re not. This murky middle ground in which we currently exist, where nobody’s quite sure what’s permissible and what might land us in jail or get us killed is definitely not free.

Every country celebrates it, and yet every country modifies it with the stipulation: ‘within the law’. While those laws differ throughout Europe and the US, none are without restriction. In fact, the UK has stricter laws on free speech than anywhere else in Europe, covering everything from threats, abuse, insults, harassment, breach of the peace, racism, terrorism, incitement, gross offence, treason, indecency, obscenity, defamation, trade secrecy, classified material, copyright...the list goes on and on. Countless songs, books and films are still banned and re-edited every year. The TV schedule is subject to watershed rules and the internet routinely regulated and censored. It even came to light during a televised political debate on the subject this week that the BBC operates a ban on all depictions of the prophet Mohammed. Here is a direct quote from their editorial guidelines on political, religious and topical sensitivities:

‘Due care and consideration must be made regarding the use of religious symbols in images which may cause offence. The prophet Mohammed must not be represented in any shape or form.’

So even our nation’s public-funded, impartial, fair and most highly respected broadcaster obediently stays not only inside the law, but also its own, harsher, self-imposed rules. So much for freedom of the press. How can we possibly encourage journalists to dig deeper and push boundaries when it’s so unclear how far those boundaries are allowed to be pushed? The Leveson Inquiry and continued sales of certain related newspapers proved beyond doubt that not only do we not have a free press in the UK, but we don’t actually want one. Meanwhile, those who dare to break the rules to publish things they believe the public have a right to know end up in prison, or being forced to take long-term refuge in a South American embassy.

Just as many in the western world now mock the religious for believing so wholeheartedly in something that they don’t think is real, consider that perhaps the rest of the world are now laughing just as hard at us for believing so staunchly in the myth that is our so-called freedom.

I saw this cartoon shared on social media shortly after the killings at Charlie Hebdo, and it really got me thinking. It highlights one of the many double standards at work in western free speech, particularly where religion is concerned, and probably due to our terrible Holocaust guilt (because let’s not forget that the west has been and continues to be responsible for many of its own despicable atrocities and acts of terrorism). 

In France, the Gayssot Act of 1990 prohibits any racist, anti-Semitic or xenophobic activity in speech or print. It’s interesting to note that the term ‘anti-Semitic’ has only been exclusively applied to Jews in recent history. The true definition of Semites actually covers many of the peoples of the ancient Middle East, and the Semitic religions include Islam and Christianity as well as Judaism. So if we’re allowed to criticise and ridicule Islam and Christianity so freely, then surely it has to apply to Judaism and every other denomination too.

Blasphemy concerning any religion is one of the restrictions on free speech in many eastern countries and even several in the west, so it’s bound to be a highly inflammatory area for people living in other cultures under different constitutional laws, especially in the current climate. For me, when it comes to derogatory depictions of Islam at the moment, it’s not about defiantly making a display of exercising free speech or rejecting fear and terrorism, it’s about basic humanitarianism and compassion towards that enormous majority of Muslims who aren’t extremists, and causing obstruction to any hope of mutual respect and peaceful resolution. There’s a huge difference between using satire as a humorous device to shine a light on shortcomings of institutions, and using it as a one-sided and deliberately insulting vehicle to further enforce a divide and fuel such a volatile fire. I don’t know what the answer to all this is, but I know that it won’t be reached while communication between both sides consists of persistent insults, threats and extremely violent acts.

The editors, journalists and cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo had been warned many times before about taking their deliberately offensive satire too far. They had already suffered numerous threats, even seen their office firebombed and been ordered to pay many heavy legal fines for taking their use of free speech beyond the law, all the while continuing to skate along the borderlines of provocation. In many ways it’s admirable, of course they had the right to satirise, and nobody could ever begin to suggest that all those innocent people deserved what happened to them. But then I can’t help but think that perhaps just a little more BBC-esque thought on their part to political, religious and topical sensitivities wouldn’t have gone amiss, and may even have saved lives. So I guess my question is not why shouldn’t everyone have the right to be offensive and antagonistic, but why does everyone want to be?

I also noticed that the tragedies in Paris buried the big European news from the day before the first shootings, which reported the Pegida anti-Islam and immigration marches which continued to gain momentum in Germany throughout the week. I myself, and I suspect many others, especially Islamic extremists, are more offended by events such as this than any cartoon that ends up in the next day’s recycling.

Unfortunately, the defence of freedom of speech is a tricky area, in which everyone has to defend things they find abhorrent or offensive so that they may be allowed to continue to express themselves. So while I may disagree with Pegida, I will always stand up for their right to march for whatever cause they see fit. But I also believe that we ought to be very careful about purposely and publicly insulting or ridiculing other cultures, races, religions politics and beliefs, because it ultimately makes us no better than those who judge us for our own. So at the same time as defending free speech, I will continue to stand up for tolerance, because if we are to be granted these freedoms, then we have to allow everyone else those same rights we claim for ourselves. And even though the law says it’s okay to emotionally damage whole nations or groups of society, so long as you don’t physically hurt them, I disagree.

So I guess in my ideal world, we’d have total freedom of speech, combined with total respect and understanding and a desire to peacefully coexist that meant we never felt the need to push our freedoms to their limits. What a shame we’re human.

If you like my blog, please feel free to comment here ↓ or become a follower over here à

Maybe you'll also like the fiction writing on my website: http://www.shelleyirving.com

And I'd appreciate it if you'd actively 'like' my facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Shelley-Irving-Writer/227455587342847