Reading about Paris, I couldn't reconcile the frequent
statements being made that France has a long tradition of free speech with my
understanding of what limits I know they have in place. I am familiar with the many authors
(like Voltaire) who fought against the Catholic Church by continuing to write
in the face of certain persecution. However, modern France has seemingly
adopted a policy of discretionary censorship. They have laws built into their
penal system which are meant to act as a deterrent to anyone who would speak
against events such as the Jewish Holocaust. I can’t help but notice that when brown people are involved, the decision to limit speech garners less
support, as was the case in 2012 with the attempted passage of censorship laws
which would have condemned public denial of the Armenian
Genocide. Of course, politics play a large role in these decisions, but I
don’t think this is just a coincidence.
As an American, I try to be conscious of my views
surrounding free speech since we are so indoctrinated with the idea that our
individual opinions not only matter, but that we have this inalienable right to express them. Too often we think only of the
satisfaction of being heard and not of the consequences our views have in the
world. If we have a right to our opinions, we have a personal and civic duty to
accept the responsibility of what ensues after we express them.
I want to preface by saying that this is not meant to be a
piece about how to victim-blame. What happened in Paris most recently, and the
examples which came numerous times before, were all tragic. But that’s just my
problem with these events, they were tragic in the most literal sense and they
continue to go un-checked. Our societies have seen what can happen when we
actively *choose* to disrespect a particular religion which, let’s be very
clear, is what these authors have as their intent. This is what political
cartoonist do: they galvanize and get people talking. Sometimes this is
necessary because they say things no one else is saying, or they lead the
charge in speaking out against an injustice. This can be admirable, but to
continue to act from a place of power (access to widely read printing from a
nation with such a long history of colonialism), seems less necessary and more
like pandering to the discriminatory and xenophobic views which so many have
adopted.
The conventional wisdom in the U.S., as I’ve said before,
centers on the individual’s right to free speech. For much of my life, this
simple rule was the premise on which I formed the basis of my understanding
of what it was to have inalienable rights. There is always an exception to the
rule, however, and the one which always comes to my mind is that of “clear and
present danger”. Though applying this statement to this scenario would
mandate some leniency as to who it was that presented the danger, it is clear
each time what is the inciting incident. Writing incendiary material of a
specific nature against the religion of Islam and the Prophet Muhammed can lead to deadly consequences. I
think the recent events in Paris make this evident. Clearly this kind of mockery
will not go unnoticed and sometimes will not go unpunished.
Over 12 people were either killed or injured in the Charlie
Hebdo shootings in Paris. Not all of those people were writers or even
affiliates of the publication, yet they absorbed some of that retaliatory “punishment”.
If we know what can happen when choices like Charlie Hebdo’s are made, why is
it that we don’t see fit to take preventative measures? And yes, I know, “slippery
slope” but this is not a general plea for censorship of anything which tweaks
the nerves of our sometimes admittedly sensitive society. In our “culture of
umbrage” (as I once saw
it phrased), pleasing everyone is increasingly impossible. Yet we are
talking about a very specific request from a relatively large group of people
from part of a widely practiced religion regarding their prophet. It is so
simple, and yet seems to be the most common choice of subject matter for those
who want to exercise their ability to present their opinion.
It is easy to say these events were tragic, because they
are. It is easy to feel devastated for the victims of this crime, because they
are victims and this was an incredibly violent crime. What is not always easy,
is questioning the saint-like voice given to those who are presented as martyrs
to a cause (and what more noble cause than our rights and our freedom?). To put it simply: what
the authors of that infamous image wrote was racist and Islamophobic. Some of
these people died for those beliefs, and unfortunately, some died because
others held these beliefs. One could call this “speech” carelessness, given the
instances of violence
or threats
of violence which have occurred as a result of this kind of disrespect
before. And I would have suspected that, if one religion could warrant laws limiting
speech, others could as well, but this is not the case in a hierarchical and
racist system. What’s more, given these acts of terrorism, I suspect this type of reform will never happen. Quite the opposite, I suspect will cut off the
thumb to spite the hand. They will continue to print these images and will
never censor these particular images because they are proud of their rights,
proud of their opinions, proud to "be Charlie", but they are not thinking of the
consequences of their obstinance and bigotry. And I am upset, because not only
has blood been shed, but also this attack will, I’m sure, be used by certain
groups to further denigrate an entire religion when not every member ascribes
to this particular “rule” (let alone to the extreme measures taken by the
gunmen in Paris). The general backlash brown communities feel are on full display in Rupert Murdoch’s recent comments about Muslims who must, according to him, “be held responsible”. This justification is yet another example of
the vitriol against people who had nothing to do with these attacks. I am
devastated on so many accounts, and so pessimistic about what these events will
mean for brown people and people who look “suspicious” to those who espouse
these racist opinions.
Innocent people have been drawn into this conflict by those
with pens and those with guns, and I find it wanton and abhorrent on both
accounts.
No comments:
Post a Comment