The tragedy which took place in Paris over the past week transfixed Europeans and appears to be as much of a watershed in European development as September 11 was on our side of the Atlantic.
On this occasion, my proximity to the tragedy as it evolved helped me to fully appreciate the extent to which the French response reflected both grief and introspection. There was national mourning for the loss of lives, both civilian and police.
However, as flags across the country were flown at half mast and the Eiffel Tower went dark for five minutes, it was clear that the French were mourning not only the loss of their comrades, but the potential loss of one of the freedoms they cherish . . . free speech.
In France, public demonstrations are almost a national pastime and it was perhaps not surprising that their mourning took the form of spontaneous public protest which focused not only on the loss of life, but the potential loss of liberty which this attack represented.
Central to this was a focus on the pen, that simple but effective device that we were all told is mightier than the sword. Certainly this tragedy has tested this theory in the context of a 21st century depiction of machine guns and MacBooks.
As the tragedy evolved from an attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo by two men, into a chain of events that resulted in the death of a policewoman of Caribbean descent, one could not help but be impressed by the speed with which the French authorities were able to provide detailed information on the criminals’ history.
This sparked a national debate on the extent to which people with such records are allowed to roam free in France and their response provides a clue about the extent to which extremism is prevalent in Europe today.
It also struck me that calls for the reintroduction of the death penalty came only from a single far-right politician and were not mentioned in any mainstream discourse, while in the Caribbean the majority are still convinced that capital punishment will result in a reduction of the level of crime.
Once the perpetrators were successfully captured (sadly not alive) and their hostages freed, the process of introspection started in France and continued up to the time of writing.
It has thrown up several interesting perspectives on the issue but it is clear that the central focus is an appreciation of the extent to which this issue is about tolerance – the extent to which France is a society that tolerates Muslims and also the extent to which Muslims in France and Europe are themselves intolerant (of other religious beliefs and especially intolerant of insults thrown at Islam).
Those among us who value freedom of speech are anxious to identify with Charlie Hebdo and feel “his” pain. This empathy is particularly significant for me as I know first-hand how the original author of this column suffered on account of a less extreme attack on free speech.
This probably explains why I am so fixated on the need for tolerance and equally opposed to intolerance which breeds extremism of this nature.
The logical question that emerges therefore is whether this incident is a reaction to Charlie Hebdo’s intolerance and disrespect of Islam or is it about the extremists’ intolerance of Charlie Hebdo’s offensive approach to humour.
Alternatively, we can ask if free speech means that “I” have the right to offend people and moreover what consequences should I suffer if I do. To answer the first part of this question in the negative means that one is effectively arguing that Charlie Hebdo brought this on themselves, which is an assertion I am uncomfortable with. I am, however, equally cognisant of the fact that the truest test of free speech is one’s ability to cause offence and “get away” with it.
Many years ago, Ezra Alleyne made the point that “offence is not given, it is taken”, and this reality often makes it difficult to know when one has crossed the line, until a reaction is evoked.
In the case of Charlie Hebdo, there was no such confusion since they wilfully and knowingly caused offence in a way that I would not have. Like most of their contributors and indeed most of France, I am not a believer and therefore don’t understand the excitement religion creates. I do, however, appreciate that for them their beliefs are real and as worthy of respect as mine are.
Summarily therefore, my perspective on this issue helps me to identify and not identify with “Charlie” since I would not myself have trod their path, but this not out of a fear of Islam, but out of respect for it.
My perspective is no different towards Christianity, or Judaism, but I also feel strongly that if someone was moved to insult any religion or belief in pursuit of humour, then that person ought to enjoy protection from the shield of free speech.
Free speech therefore does convey the right to insult a religion and followers of a religion as mature and established as Islam will often need to take insults in much the same way that other religions do.
Peter W. Wickham ([email protected]) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
