Freedom of Speech is what allows me to have a free commentary, illustration, discourse, discussion, argument without a provocative tone or nature. If it does have a slightest trace of intimidation, disrespect or defamation, I can be held liable for my trespass and violation of someone else's 'aura' of self respect and good name. Things become more complex and subtler, when subject of speech is targeted towards a revered and 'passed-away' figure.
Now if someone commits such wrongdoing it justifiably requires a redress. After horrendous events of WWII world has aptly responded to threat of world peace through hands of racial abuses and hatred. Anti-semitic laws were promulgated, appartheid was disowned and many more similar issues were addressed head on. Later on punishing one for anti-Semitic statements became excessively repressive though fashionable. But diametrically opposite stance was taken against other violations of religious freedom where interests differed.
Targeting muslims' beliefs and religious figures with a smearing campaign may it be through any media is a blatant violation of any universally accepted doctrine of respect for a religious sect. Satire is healthy if it does not beg division withing a society.
Now coming specifically to the incident that happened in France, I out-rightly denounce violence and terrorism as a tool to silence wrong-doers. But Charlie Hebdo itself is not 'clean-handed' as there was a responsibility on part of magazine's administration not to publish such funny material which has underlying features of hate. Hate begets hate may it be under thousand guises of comedy.
When I say Charlie Hebdo is not 'clean-handed' I didn't target their outrageous comics against Islam only but also their dual standards.
Here is an instance when Charlie Hebdo itself became an impediment to freedom of speech. Legal system of France, too did not take into account its 'landmark' secularism which is celebrated for its magnanimity. Reason behind that was 'often played' charges of 'antisemitism' against Sine who was a cartoonist in Charlie Hebdo. His satire targeted French President Sarkozy's son who was believed to be converted to Judaism. Everything would be fine if it would be minus Judaism. Actually Sine tried to link his conversion with financial reasons behind this conversion. What happened to him was similar to someone who is typically accused for 'neo-nazi' antisemitism.
Telegraph has covered this story.
Link: When Charlie Hebdo attacked freedom of speech
Dieudonne who is a famous though controversial comedian has been arrested for principally doing what I am doing here and he has been charged for 'apology for terrorism' while French PM has called his satire different to Charlie Hebdo's 'impertinent satire'.
Link: Poor Dieudonne
We already heard another controversy in past regarding 'quenelle' gesture associated with him and a famous footballer Nicoles Anelka and the response they received by authorities for their freedom of expression.
Epitome
Above mentioned citations clearly exhibit dual standards regarding freedom of speech paradigm which needs to be addressed at earliest and with earnest approach. Freedom of speech or expression is no mere business of personal freedom as it involves speech which is targeted to 'others' than speaker. This is exactly when rights of those 'others' come into play. Astoundingly many proponents of freedom of speech miss that important distinction which can't be more clear and visible.
So such freedom of speech is immutable which engenders holistic picture and if someone tries to temper with such standards he may be held responsible otherwise not. As Chalie Hebdo is ignorant of that distinction and continues to be, precisely this is why I am not Charlie.
No comments:
Post a Comment