In wake of the attack at the Charlie Hebdo, satirical magazine in Paris and the killing of 12 of its editorial staffs by the so called Islamist terrorists and coincidentally the killing of Jewish owners of a kosher deli, the uproar and continued coverage of it by all print and electronic media over the week somehow pales the genuine concern for human freedom.
It was certainly appropriate that the ordinary citizens of France and other international communities were raged by the incident and came out genuinely to show solidarity with one another in establishing a common cause of bonding for freedom and freedom of expression for all races, ethnicities and religions.
However, sensible people were also appalled by Charlie Hebdo's decision to print a follow-up edition of the satirical magazine with a cover with the same offensive caricature as the one that had caused such emotive and horrific reaction to kill 12 editorial staffs and 4 innocent persons who were identified as Jews.
Apart from the gruesome killing, the two incidents raised several questions -- one, the responsibility for consequences of any act or expression of freedom would permit; and the other, whether such concern for such actions and expression should be demonstrated at similar level for atrocities regularly committed with the same ferocity elsewhere.
The claim in numerical numbers in the incidents were 12 editorial staffs and four Jewish citizens of France, but Hafez Al Assad has already killed more than 100,000 and displaced 2.4 million people, of whom many are women and children. Mr. Netanyahu with his killing machine killed more than 7 thousand Palestinian men, women and children; Boko-Haram in Nigeria is reported to have killed over 20,000 people and abducted over 5000 women and children. The ISIS has resorted to public display of routinely executing innocent people. Such atrocities have occured in human history in Europe, America, Africa and elsewhere, so what was so uniquely different in the incidents in Paris? This was not the first time that the media enraged someone or some groups and definitely it was not the first time that media was attacked as a reaction.
One needs to appreciate, while considering the issues raised by the incidents in Paris that : 1) someone knowingly and genuinely committed to demonise faith of all kinds in name of some kind of artistic and intellectual expression of higher understanding of human values; 2) however hurtful it may be to the rest of the mankind, the social and administrative system which are under attack will provide protection to those who callously and shamefully demean human and human limitation; 3) citizen of a country possesses less human value if he is not identified as a Jew. The innocent people who were killed at the Deli-shop were French citizens and human beings in the first place. It is pathetic that Israeli Prime Minister who is regularly and routinely killing Palestinians would call for all French Jews to emigrate to Israel. Bernard Avishai wrote on January 16, 2015 in the New York Times, "For Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, last week's crime in Paris was that kind of Zionist déjà vu, instructive for emancipated citizens and for Jews - often the same people, yet distinct enough from each other to learn different lessons. …Jewish response must be to self segregate: affirm, in principle, the liberal values of the West, but deny that they ever worked well enough for Diaspora Jews; insist that we fight for our freedom from our own ground".
There is discrimination in every corner of the globe. The Jews like the blacks, yellows will have experienced victimisation in every country including Israel. Are we then to believe that separate places for all faiths and races and identities will solve the problem of this earth -- its political conflicts, environmental destruction, depravation and poverty?
It is necessary to have some sense of responsibility for respecting each other's faith, values and traditions. One does not become great by humiliating others or by putting down others for their respective faiths. However eloquently criticism is made or brilliantly painted or caricatured, human tolerance has its own limit too.
Persons who choose to exercise their freedom of speech or the right to public assembly should understand that such rights are not unlimited. When an activity infringes on the rights of others, the activity loses constitutional protection and may become a violation of law of the land. Tolerance, civility and mutual respect for diversity of background, gender, ethnicity, race and religion is crucial, as is tolerance, civility and mutual respect for divergence of political beliefs, sexual orientation, and physical abilities.
There is a debate going on in the civil society as to the limits of satire when the consequences may be the death of many innocent persons. In such cases, the question arises whether the exercise of freedom of expression can be given priority over social peace, and what kind of restraint should be imposed. As in many other circumstances, there may be competing rights and colliding interests that must be taken into account and balanced out. Insistence on the exercise of any right, e.g., freedom of expression, notwithstanding the foreseeable consequences, violates common sense and constitutes a dangerous form of impertinence.
The leaders who went to Paris to express support for the people of France have automatically made a commitment to their own people and to the world community that these inalienable rights of expression and assembly will also be guaranteed in their countries, just as much as in France.
"Terrorism has no religion, no sect, no doctrine and no national identity. Terrorism is a disease resulting from many intertwining complications that benefit from religion and use it as a cover. This is not a defense of Islam in particular as all religions carry some seeds of violence backed by claims that its adherents possess the absolute truth. Terrorism is not a struggle of religions as explosions in Jabal Mohsen or Beirut's southern suburb or any other place go beyond sect to the terror group's political affiliation. Bloody struggles in more than one Arab country and massacres are committed by people of the same religion." wrote Nayla Tueni, one of the few elected female politicians in Lebanon and the youngest. "Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say, it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike." wrote, Anjem Choudhary the radical Cleric of UK, in US Today.
It is indeed irrelevant watching from a distance living in a chaotic country, the events unfolding in Paris, but the resonating effect of diminished value of humans reached our shores, long before the debate of responsibility, freedom and freedom of expression was threatened by those who never had an opportunity to think, act or express freely.
kbahmed1@gamil.com
Responsibility, freedom and freedom of expression
K. B. Ahmed | Published: January 23, 2015 00:00:00 | Updated: November 30, 2026 06:01:00
Share if you like