Heroes and Villains: 'Charlie Hebdo' and 'The Sun'

A week ago, the French magazine, ‘Charlie Hebdo’ was widely lauded in Western democracies for its decision to print copies containing further cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. One week later, the British newspaper, ‘The Sun’ was roundly castigated for its continued policy of posting photos of topless young women on its infamous/famous ‘Page Three’ after it had earlier appeared that it had brought this forty five year old practice to a halt.

I am in favour neither of Charlie Hebdo’s approach to religion nor of The Sun’s approach to women, but I support both papers’ rights to freedom of expression, which includes their right to offend. I wish that neither paper would use their freedom in the ways that they do, but I do not want their freedoms to be curtailed. Censorship is a death-knell to liberty.

This begs the question: how far should freedom of expression go? Jurisdictions take widely varying approaches to this issue. At one end of the spectrum, countries like the USA set freedom of expression as an almost absolute principle while at the other end, states such as Saudi Arabia flog bloggers who dare to question prevalent social norms. The UK sits somewhat uncomfortably in the middle, agonising over how to strike the balance between respecting freedom of expression and penalising hate-crime.

It is tempting to think that ‘our’ country has got it right, but a greater danger than simply following our particular state’s laws and social norms is the temptation to promote freedom of expression when we agree with what is being said, but to oppose it when we find words or images objectionable. This, of course, is not something to which we are readily going to admit. I suspect, however, that many people agreed with Charlie Hebdo’s stance because they wanted to give religion a bloody nose while some of the same people want ‘Page Three’ to be outlawed because they find objectification of women abhorrent.

Such feelings are understandable (and, in part, I agree with them) but they ought to be pushed firmly to one side.  We need to decide what criteria we establish for determining when, if at all, freedom of expression ought to be curtailed and then adhere to those criteria, regardless of our personal opinions on a given topic.

My view is that as long as participants are acting consensually, freedom of expression ought not to be curtailed, subject to potential audiences being made aware of the possible content of the magazine, film, book or play in question. Those who object to what is being said or portrayed are free to express their objections with equal liberty. Vive la liberté.

Pens and Swords

‘The pen is mightier than the sword’ has found new expression in the ‘Je suis Charlie’ slogan adopted my thousands in the aftermath of the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris by individuals linked to Al Quaeda.  These murders, and those of police officers and shoppers in related incidents, are inexcusable.

They have also served to turn the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo into modern martyrs for freedom of speech, over against repressive ideologies that would seek to impose restrictions not only on actions and speech, but even on thoughts, if only they were able.

I am entirely in favour of freedom of speech and I am entirely opposed to repression, particularly (given my belief in the existence of God) repression that is religiously motivated. The fact that I disagree with the doctrines and the methods espoused by Islamists does little to ease my sense of discomfort.

I am, however, also made uneasy by the ‘Je suis Charlie’ slogan. I understand that it reflects a desire to protect freedom of speech and to that extent I go along with it, but while I defend the cartoonists’ right to publish what they did, I do not want to be associated with their ideas or methods.

Paradoxically, both Al Quaeda and Charlie Hebdo advocate restrictive societies, one by the sword and the other by the pen. Al Quaeda wishes to establish a monochrome Islamist state while Charlie Hebdo promotes a monochrome secularist state. Both want ‘public space’ to be ideologically regulated. Of course, there is a world of difference in their methodologies: scatological humour might well be offensive (and some of their cartoons such as that depicting Jesus engaged in anal sex with God the Father was deliberately meant to be offensive), but such offence does not compare with the abomination of murder.

I readily agree that a modern secular society is preferable to a fundamentalist religious one, but these are not the only options. Inclusive pluralism, in which all individuals and groups, religious and secular alike, are welcomed and valued is the hallmark of a truly liberal and open society. Of course, there are limits to pluralism; it can only work if disparate groups are prepared to be inclusive in the sense that they value others and do not seek to impose their ideologies on others. Fascists (secular or religious) remain beyond the Pale, but there is ample room for public expressions of Islam and other religions just as there is for expressions of non-religious ideologies.

There can be no place for ideologically inspired terror and murder in an inclusive pluralist society. There is room for offensive humour in an open society so Charlie Hebdo must be protected and permitted to publish, but I have to say that I much prefer mutual respect to mockery.

Je suis Charlie? I’m afraid, that with a heavy heart, I have to say ‘Non’