Dr Mohamed Kirat
By Dr Mohamed Kirat
Many journalists said we have to accept freedom of expression, but we have also to be responsible for the impact these drawings have on other people and other countries. Because the problem is not only French. There’s a French context but all these questions also have an influence all over the world.
Free speech is generally understood to be any communication that doesn’t libel or lead to the physical harm of another individual. But it’s the latter principle that is causing problems for many Western countries, because what is viewed as valid criticism — of a religion, for example — can be viewed as hate speech by others. Government should not be in the business of judging that fine line.
The attack on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo raised so many questions that were not asked systematically by the French, European and international news media. The questions are related to the perpetrators of the crime: Who are they? Where do they come from and where were the French authorities all these years?
Many questions are raised about the 5,000 Europeans who left their countries to join the ranks of IS and Al Qaeda; 1,300 of them were from France. The issue here is the fact that the media are more into sensation and oddity than tackling the real causes of the problem. When you have hundreds of thousands of youth marginalised and living in a world of drugs, and crimes, you will end up with delinquents and terrorists. What the French media forgot to look at is the failure of the French policies and programmes to integrate the second and third generations of immigrants from the Maghreb and Africa. There are six million Muslims in France; they have French passports, but they are considered second and third class citizens. After the Charlie Hebdo attack, there were more than 500 incidents against mosques and Muslims. Here we are witnessing a big problem of intolerance and integrating the other — no matter what his or her colour, religion and faith.
France has failed over the decades to integrate the second- and third-generation of immigrants. Despite the evolution experienced by mankind throughout history, the international community still suffers from a lack of tolerance, understanding, dialogue and respect for others regardless of race, colour, religion and beliefs.
Terrorism is a chronic disease that disappears and then suddenly reappears, and as long as France did not dare to confront the problem seriously, objectively and responsibly, terrorism will reign as long as its causes are there. France did not set clear parameters for dealing with the problem of integrating expatriates and communities living on its territory. The two men who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack are two French young men, who were born, raised and studied in France. They are the product of France; unfortunately the French society failed to integrate them and make out of them good citizens instead of delinquents and terrorists.
Holocaust criticism is punishable under the 1990 Gayssot law, and carries up to a year in prison. Roger Garaudy, a French intellectual and thinker wrote a book about the state of Israel and the holocaust. He was tried, jailed and fined $50,000. To the French officials blaspheming Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is freedom of expression and it is a right for everybody to do so; however nobody has the right to criticise the holocaust and this is how the French conceive of freedom of expression.
Two issues, two parameters and two ways to deal with freedom of expression. Asked about the Paris terrorist attack, the Pope answered: “One cannot provoke; one cannot insult other people’s faith; one cannot make fun of faith”. The pope went on to say: “There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity… in freedom of expression there are limits.”
In the last few days French authorities arrested more than 55 persons because they justified terrorism, or they were criticising the way France has been handling the issue of terrorism and the marginalisation of immigrants. In the week since Islamic radicals killed 12 people at the office of Charlie Hebdo, there have been solidarity marches, vocal commitments to democratic ideals — and, according to free-speech advocates, a lot of hypocrisy. A number of influential people, including British novelist Salman Rushdie, himself the target of Muslim extremists once, are warning that a fear of Islamic radicalism is leading many Western countries to waver in their commitment to free expression. But other prominent opinion leaders, including Pope Francis and a number of British newspaper editors, say that the Charlie Hebdo incident shows there are no absolutes when it comes to free speech, and that enforcing some sort of mutual respect, particularly of religion, is key to the success of multicultural societies. You might expect such diverging opinions in liberal democracies, but overall, “the West seems to have gradually fallen out of faith with free speech,” says Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and frequent commentator on issues around freedom of expression.
Shortly after the attacks, President François Hollande vowed to protect the freedom of expression embodied by the satirical journal. But since then more than 50 people have been detained or jailed for a range of remarks, shouted out or posted on social media. Young people in particular are denouncing what they see as double standards: cartoons satirising the Prophet are given support in the name of free speech while people are prosecuted for comments that appear to condone terrorism.
On Wednesday, French comedian and polemicist Dieudonné was arrested for condoning terrorism after posting “I feel like Charlie Coulibaly” on Facebook. This was just after some 3.7 million people had taken part in the “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) unity marches across France. Dieudonné has been convicted on charges of anti-Semitism in the past and the comment was interpreted as supporting Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman who killed a policewoman and four Jewish men in a kosher supermarket just over a week ago. Pope Francis summed up the mixed messages during his visit to the Philippines, saying that “to kill in the name of God is an absurdity,” but “you cannot provoke, you cannot insult other people’s faith.” It’s about time that journalists should explore the difference between freedom of expression and hate speech, a harsh critique and an insult, something Charlie Hebdo didn’t see and didn’t want to see.
The writer is a professor of Public Relations and Mass Communication at the College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University.
By Dr Mohamed Kirat
Many journalists said we have to accept freedom of expression, but we have also to be responsible for the impact these drawings have on other people and other countries. Because the problem is not only French. There’s a French context but all these questions also have an influence all over the world.
Free speech is generally understood to be any communication that doesn’t libel or lead to the physical harm of another individual. But it’s the latter principle that is causing problems for many Western countries, because what is viewed as valid criticism — of a religion, for example — can be viewed as hate speech by others. Government should not be in the business of judging that fine line.
The attack on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo raised so many questions that were not asked systematically by the French, European and international news media. The questions are related to the perpetrators of the crime: Who are they? Where do they come from and where were the French authorities all these years?
Many questions are raised about the 5,000 Europeans who left their countries to join the ranks of IS and Al Qaeda; 1,300 of them were from France. The issue here is the fact that the media are more into sensation and oddity than tackling the real causes of the problem. When you have hundreds of thousands of youth marginalised and living in a world of drugs, and crimes, you will end up with delinquents and terrorists. What the French media forgot to look at is the failure of the French policies and programmes to integrate the second and third generations of immigrants from the Maghreb and Africa. There are six million Muslims in France; they have French passports, but they are considered second and third class citizens. After the Charlie Hebdo attack, there were more than 500 incidents against mosques and Muslims. Here we are witnessing a big problem of intolerance and integrating the other — no matter what his or her colour, religion and faith.
France has failed over the decades to integrate the second- and third-generation of immigrants. Despite the evolution experienced by mankind throughout history, the international community still suffers from a lack of tolerance, understanding, dialogue and respect for others regardless of race, colour, religion and beliefs.
Terrorism is a chronic disease that disappears and then suddenly reappears, and as long as France did not dare to confront the problem seriously, objectively and responsibly, terrorism will reign as long as its causes are there. France did not set clear parameters for dealing with the problem of integrating expatriates and communities living on its territory. The two men who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack are two French young men, who were born, raised and studied in France. They are the product of France; unfortunately the French society failed to integrate them and make out of them good citizens instead of delinquents and terrorists.
Holocaust criticism is punishable under the 1990 Gayssot law, and carries up to a year in prison. Roger Garaudy, a French intellectual and thinker wrote a book about the state of Israel and the holocaust. He was tried, jailed and fined $50,000. To the French officials blaspheming Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is freedom of expression and it is a right for everybody to do so; however nobody has the right to criticise the holocaust and this is how the French conceive of freedom of expression.
Two issues, two parameters and two ways to deal with freedom of expression. Asked about the Paris terrorist attack, the Pope answered: “One cannot provoke; one cannot insult other people’s faith; one cannot make fun of faith”. The pope went on to say: “There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity… in freedom of expression there are limits.”
In the last few days French authorities arrested more than 55 persons because they justified terrorism, or they were criticising the way France has been handling the issue of terrorism and the marginalisation of immigrants. In the week since Islamic radicals killed 12 people at the office of Charlie Hebdo, there have been solidarity marches, vocal commitments to democratic ideals — and, according to free-speech advocates, a lot of hypocrisy. A number of influential people, including British novelist Salman Rushdie, himself the target of Muslim extremists once, are warning that a fear of Islamic radicalism is leading many Western countries to waver in their commitment to free expression. But other prominent opinion leaders, including Pope Francis and a number of British newspaper editors, say that the Charlie Hebdo incident shows there are no absolutes when it comes to free speech, and that enforcing some sort of mutual respect, particularly of religion, is key to the success of multicultural societies. You might expect such diverging opinions in liberal democracies, but overall, “the West seems to have gradually fallen out of faith with free speech,” says Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and frequent commentator on issues around freedom of expression.
Shortly after the attacks, President François Hollande vowed to protect the freedom of expression embodied by the satirical journal. But since then more than 50 people have been detained or jailed for a range of remarks, shouted out or posted on social media. Young people in particular are denouncing what they see as double standards: cartoons satirising the Prophet are given support in the name of free speech while people are prosecuted for comments that appear to condone terrorism.
On Wednesday, French comedian and polemicist Dieudonné was arrested for condoning terrorism after posting “I feel like Charlie Coulibaly” on Facebook. This was just after some 3.7 million people had taken part in the “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) unity marches across France. Dieudonné has been convicted on charges of anti-Semitism in the past and the comment was interpreted as supporting Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman who killed a policewoman and four Jewish men in a kosher supermarket just over a week ago. Pope Francis summed up the mixed messages during his visit to the Philippines, saying that “to kill in the name of God is an absurdity,” but “you cannot provoke, you cannot insult other people’s faith.” It’s about time that journalists should explore the difference between freedom of expression and hate speech, a harsh critique and an insult, something Charlie Hebdo didn’t see and didn’t want to see.
The writer is a professor of Public Relations and Mass Communication at the College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University.
