‘This is not freedom of expression’

The Paris attacks that left 17 people dead earlier this month were widely condemned as deplorable acts of terror.

European countries specifically condemned them because they provided a stark warning that if such terrorist acts were to continue, they would deprive Europe of its internal peace.

Arab and Muslim peoples, as well as states, also rushed to denounce the attacks as unjustified, senseless murders of innocent people. They also emphasised — as they do regularly — that Islam should not be linked to any form of terror, not only because the noble faith respects life, but also because the murderers’ claim that they were committing their crime in the name of Islam should under no circumstances implicate Islam or Muslims.

What has blurred the scene, nevertheless, is the fact that the target of the murderers was a publication that has been for years publishing cartoons and drawings mocking the Prophet Mohammad.

That, in addition to some irresponsible pronouncements that the attack was in retaliation to the offensive Charlie Hebdo drawings, was the factor that left many French and Europeans with the impression that the attack was of religious nature.

A wave of attacks at Muslim mosques, centres and even homes of Muslim families in France and elsewhere in Europe by anti-Muslim fanatics has ensued, raising the alarm that if the explosive situation is not contained, it could lead to a dangerous polarisation between Muslim Europeans, their states and fellow citizens.

Luckily, the French and the German leaders who firmly warned against implicating the Muslims or their religion in the Paris attacks correctly picked up the message.

It was also a very wise gesture of Arab Muslim leaders, in addition to French Muslims, to participate in the huge demonstration that marched in Paris to declare a loud rejection of any such bloody acts, and at the same time abort any sinister plans to aggravate already growing Muslims European tensions.

But it is worth noting that European leaders have for years done little to confront the growing anti-Muslim hatred among right-wing and other parties in Europe.

In Germany alone in recent months, tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets in marches against the “Islamisation” of Europe.

This imaginary threat of “Islamisation” reminds one of the concocted stories against Jewish and other communities that led to some of the darkest chapters in Europe’s past. It was also to confront the supposed threat of “Islamisation” that, in 2011, Anders Breivik massacred dozens of people in Norway.

With this background, and with the debate continuing, one can make the following points: first is that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are not and should not be defended as legitimate acts of freedom of expression.

Clearly they were, and still are, like the Danish cartoons years ago, meant to offend Muslims by ridiculing their prophet, most likely to provoke the kind of reaction that happened as a result of the Danish insults.

Moreover, these cartoons are not only offensive because of their denigration of the prophet, but also because they invariably use racist depictions of Arabs, Africans and Muslims, playing on all the old stereotypes from colonial times of them as dirty, ignorant and savage.

It is true that there have been large protests against the cartoons in several Muslim-majority countries, which in some cases turned violent and deadly. That is wrong, but one would have to ask if these cartoons would have generated such reaction if we had not lived through years of wars and invasions by the US and its European allies, which killed perhaps millions of people.

The cartoons are the spark, they are not the fuel. As acts such as the Paris attacks are generally perceived in the Western world as a feature of Islam, Muslims also believe that the insulting cartoons reflect Western perceptions of Arabs and Muslims in general.

This rising mutual suspicion should be seriously addressed, but that requires a major review of policies, mainly European policies, not just superficial dialogue and symptomatic dressings.

The second point on which there is particular consensus in the Muslim world is that no matter how wrong those who recklessly commit offensive acts against religion and against prophets are, the prophet of Islam in particular, it is even more wrong to retaliate by using violence.

Those who do so may well be intent on generating even more violence. This is why the attack on Charlie Hebdo was so widely condemned.

Precisely because those behind the sustained provocations aim to destroy the relations among Europeans of different faiths and between countries, reactions by all should be carefully measured so that they do not play into the hands of provocateurs.

A third point is related to the often repeated official argument that democracies do not, in any way, restrict their citizens’ right to freedom of expression.

One may have to understand that if the Danish government at the time when the Danish cartoons issue flared up could not instruct Jyllands-Posten, the paper which published the offending drawings, to stop publication, even if the authorities were themselves opposed to the paper’s action; still, the government would have other means to dissuade actions that would harm inter-community relations in Denmark as well as the country’s international relations.

In fact, Denmark suffered from boycott, retaliatory campaigns and strained relations for years.

Complete freedom of expression in abstract terms does not exist in any democracy. The official claim that democratic governments are totally powerless before offenders and troublemakers whose actions lead to global disturbances in retaliation, simply because they exercise their right, is equally absurd.

There are numerous examples of expressions that deserve no freedom.

France itself is currently engaged in a crackdown — which has been criticised by Amnesty International — on comments people are making regarding current events. 

It arrested dozens of people on vague charges of “defending terrorism”, in one case simply because a youth shared a cartoon critical of Charlie Hebdo on Facebook.

Other cases have involved drunks making stupid comments, who then found themselves before a judge on “terrorism” charges.

This is only one indicator of the double standards that are being applied.

France is one of several European countries that outlaw certain discussions of the holocaust.

The holocaust is indeed a black chapter in European history. As we are taught, European countries persecuted the Jews with extreme cruelty, leaving six million of them dead. Holocaust denial in some European countries is punishable by law on the grounds that this is too terrible a tragedy to deny or cast doubt on.

If discussion about holocaust is forbidden by law, then why cannot the deepest feelings of others enjoy the same protection?

And if that is deemed too restrictive, let us have real freedom of expression that treats every subject equally.

Freedom of expression should not be applied selectively; if a principle is so cardinal, it should not be reduced to a mere handy instrument for occasional utility.

Finally, in this moment of reaction and overreaction — look at what is happening in the Niger — we need to remind ourselves that much of the frustration, radicalisation and despair of the many young people who succumbed to indoctrination and offered themselves as easy recruits to the violent extremists are caused by injustice, hypocrisy and double standards, mainly of Western countries.

Millions suffer from these double standards, but only a tiny number is driven to violence by them.

The best route to long-term security is to work for real peace in the world and an end to the endless global war on “terror” that has in fact been a war on Muslims.