“Defending” the “offensive”: how far would you go?

Instances of Islamic extremism with instances like Muslims from France joining the rebels in the Syrian war and becoming radicalized have also been on the rise. In one example, two boys as young as 15 escaped to Syria on 6^th January 2014 to join the fighters from Al Qaeda in Syria and in a phone call to one of the boys’ disraught father, referred to the fellow rebels as their “brothers”. There are many more parents like him.

The attack on premises of Charlie Hebdo which left four prominent cartoonists dead (including its editor) was carried out by three gunmen who claimed to have associations with the Islamic State. After the attack, solidarity with the survivors and the magazine has echoed over the world with “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) trending all over social media, the internet and in the demonstrations held. The tabloid has become a symbol of defiance against those who attack the freedom of expression. Despite the attack, it came out with a special “survivor’s issue” on 14^th January 2015 which carried a cartoon of the tearful Prophet holding the sign “I am Charlie” and a title reading “All is forgiven” in the backdrop of the color green, often used to signify Islam.

While some have interpreted this cartoon as conciliatory, others have attached a defiant meaning to it. However, behind the entire furor against the carnage, Charlie Hebdo has always been known for its provocative digs at Islam and cartoons of the Prophet which some would call offensive and provocative rather than satirical. While one may argue that the magazine has all the “creative liberty” in the world to take digs in whichever way it wants, but where do we draw the line between tolerance and acceptability for a community that forms 10 percent of the French population and the right to free speech?

Times are turbulent for a pan world Islamic diaspora, with the religious fundamentalism causing even “moderate” and “modern” Muslims to be looked at with suspicion. In such a situation should a state allow under the freedom of expression, acts that attempt to provoke to the point of offending a community that is already facing isolation and an identity crisis?

When a state says that tolerate and allow all faiths and religions to practice as equal, how can it take away the choice of dressing as one wishes to? It implies that women who wear a burqa are more likely to be dangerous to the national security than those who don’t. Even if the possibility of them concealing a weapon in the burqa is considered valid, what happens to the psyche of a woman who is forced to not wear what she is comfortable with because she belongs to a certain religion?

While Charlie Hebdo’s new cartoon may stand for its freedom even in the face of the terror attack, it has stirred fresh controversy from the Muslim nations in the Middle East. The Egyptian President for example, issued a decree which would allow the prime minister to ban foreign texts that would be considered offensive to religion. A local court in Turkey, which is also a major Islamic country, also called for blocking four major websites as they had published the most recent cartoon of the magazine. Other Muslim organizations have decried Charlie Hebdo for continually publishing cartoons that attempt to provoke Muslim sentiments. 

While much of the international media has been prudent in showing support for Charlie Hebdo, the New York Times decision to not to publish the cartoon of the weeping Mohammad drew criticism. However, was it really such a bad idea? The editor of the Times defended the decision saying that they had indeed published Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons previously but would refrain from printing something that “deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities”. The fact that the New York Times took an individual call on what it considered offensive is also after all, a matter justified under free expression.

The point remains that what is considered offensive and satirical is an extremely subjective matter. 

Although the French state grants freedom of expression, its constitution also includes anti-hate laws. In fact, the French comedian M’bala M’bala was convicted for violating these laws in 2014 as his acts contained jokes that were interpreted to be anti-Semitic in nature. However, the French state seems to have decided that Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons do not violate the same anti-hate laws even though they may be considered hateful and marginalizing by a substantial chuck of the French Muslim citizenry.

The dichotomy between free speech, what can be excused under it and what extent is one that has always existed and will continue to. In the context of Charlie Hebdo, where does one draw the line between what is considered satirical and what is considered offensive? Not to imply that the murders were justified or “asked for”, but this just goes on to say that extremities on any side do not bode well to all those involved in the equation. Charlie Hebdo’s caricatures of the Prophet can be considered as one form of extremity and the reaction of the Islamic fundamentalists who carried out the attack is another.

On a basic level, maybe a little consideration towards a community and their sentiments would not be such a bad idea. If that consideration allows a little less room for provocative creativity, it does not always have to be interpreted as a curb on the free speech and expression. The function of humour should not be limited to make only the majority laugh. Tolerance, being an internal part of free speech, is not just a matter of inclusion of criticism, humour and commentary on anything and everything. It is a matter of respecting what the other group stands for as well; and whichever side one is on, this a fact that cannot be forgotten.