Limits to freedom of expression

The killings at Charlie Hebdo had given rise to expressions of unalloyed sympathy across the world including the Muslim communities. No matter what the provocations, settling scores through violence is never justified. From that sympathy a unity of expressions transcending divisions of faith, ethnicity and nationality had emerged. This was a critical element in fighting the multi-dimensional scourge of religious extremism on a global scale, and it was perhaps that realisation which prompted many Muslim scholars to publicly acknowledge the fact that deviated-Muslims are getting radicalised. Of course, many such radicalised elements are themselves victims of oppression, discrimination, aggression, hatred and fanaticism. And some had chosen destructive paths when they found their last prophet ridiculed by non-believers.
How would you react if someone claiming his freedom of expression ridicules our freedom fighters in a statement or in the form of a cartoon? How would the Jews and the people of civility react if one claiming the same freedom of expression ridicules Judaism or glorifies Hitler's actions against the Jews? How would you react if your friend exercising his right of expression utters a nasty word to curse your mother? How did you feel when you read some European countries including France had passed laws disapproving Muslim women of wearing Hijaab while men and women of other religions were allowed to wear a variety of veils, head dresses and costumes their religions required them to wear? Why should there not be limits to freedom of expression? Why is there the double standard in freedom of expression?
Free speech is not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good. It is a heinous eccentricity to kill in the name of God, and religion can never be used to justify violence. But insulting or ridiculing faiths and religions should not be put within the purview of freedom of expression.
With the cartoon on Prophet Muhammad just published on the cover of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo's latest issue, it is now clear that the journalists have  not behaved responsibly and they have rather poured fuel on fire when the world needed peace and tolerance. Has the French satirical magazine published the cartoon on the Prophet in order to radicalise Muslims or to create new Jihadists with a view to demonising Islam in the eyes of the world? French journalists have reasons to feel angst against those Jihadists who killed innocent people in France. A refusal to cave in to threats of violence can be deemed courageous, but the situation in this instance demands a more nuanced view.
Charlie Hebdo's journalists, by offending the Prophet once again, have opted for a mean, insular response instead of seeing resistance to extremist elements as a battle in a much bigger perspective. As a result, the unanimous expressions against extremism have once more become fragmented and skewed towards the acts that insult faith, rather than the actions that violate the norms of all faiths - in this case, murder in the name of religion. Such an atmosphere is conducive for voices on the margins to stir the cauldron of hate anew. Their impact is already being felt on the streets of many Muslim countries with violent protests against the cartoon.
Caricatures and cartoons on the last Prophet of Islam will invariably infuriate the lunatics among the radicals and may make the lives of millions of peaceful, law-abiding Muslims across the world more precarious at the hands of those who equate Islam with militancy.
The impulse to commit sacrilege-and punish it-has marked nearly every society and every epoch in human history. People have always gone to great lengths to protect their faiths and sanctities. Examining the historical records, one can find an aversion to blasphemy not only among the devout and the monotheists but also among the liberals. Even atheists refrain from ridiculing the faiths of others. The ancient Athenians, those archetypal democrats who allowed citizens to criticise their cherished civic institutions, still forbade people from ridiculing the Gods or the worship of them.
Even in the United States, which has acquired a well-deserved reputation for protecting free expression, state and local authorities were once authorised to punish anti-Christian sentiments. A 1782 Massachusetts law prescribed severe punishments, including whipping, for anyone convicted of "denying, cursing, or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing, or reproaching Jesus Christ" The Bible and the Holy Ghost were always off-limits. Blasphemous Americans are still frowned on with contempt.
There should now be debates and resolutions made on the limits of free speech in a globalised, interlinked and interracial world. Such a resolution has assumed greater urgency in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo killings last week.
Perhaps it is time for the world leaders to put their heads together and shape this debate along rational and non-discriminatory lines keeping in mind the long-term implications of unbridled free speech.
 [email protected]