The Charlie wave
Thousands of demonstrators have used the hash tag Je Suis Charlie (I am Charlie) on the streets of Paris and other European cities to show their solidarity with the fallen cartoonists who were most brutally murdered on January 7 by Islamic fundamentalists. While sympathising with the grieving French peopel and condemning the dastardly attack it is indeed difficult to unreservedly declare one's affinity with the philosophy or the modus operandi of the Charlie Hebdo magazine. The points are clear—should there be unfettered freedom for a satirical magazine to indiscriminately hurt the sentiments of practitioners of a religion?
The magazine in question prides itself on protecting and defending freedom of opinion without recognising that exercising unbridled freedom is actually prejudicing the rights of others. It does not take note of the reality that in Europe no criticism of Jewish religion is tolerated. In fact, 80 year old cartoonist Maurice Sinet had to lose his job in Charlie Hebdo magazine for refusing to apologize for allegedly insulting Jewish religion. So, if satirising Jewish religion is not acceptable what is the justification for hurting Muslim religious beliefs and sentiments?
The issue is whether printing news or cartoons that carry the potential of causing death of many is responsible journalism. Publishing of instigating news or spreading hatred, quite clearly, should run counter to the principles of responsible journalism. It is interesting to note that while demonstrating nonchalance in the face of terrorist threat many European magazines have reprinted and are reprinting the old cartoons lampooning the Prophet of Islam (pbuh). The mainstream media in UK did not publish those cartoons. Understandably, such discretion has been exercised to maintain balance with reality.
The BBC editorial guidelines urged exercise of caution and consideration in the display of religious symbols and photographs, particularly those that might cause insult. It is well known that the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) cannot be depicted in any form or shape. Therefore, one could ask if there is a deliberate effort to create an inflammatory situation by hurting one's faith by republishing the same cartoons that caused hundreds of deaths a decade ago.
One can recollect the brutal murders of 77 young men and women by a radicalised Christian youth in Norway in 2011. This terrorist carried a political declaration that was extremely anti-Islam. The whole of Europe apprehends the rise of unprecedented anti-Islam sectarian politics. In peace-loving Sweden there have been attacks including arson in mosques in Stockholm. Media Moghul Rupert Murdoch has said that Muslims have to bear the responsibility for the attack in France. In Germany, there are increasing demonstrations against Muslim immigrants. The voices of rejuvenated far-right political leaders are becoming dangerously strident against the ethos of a multi-racial society in Britain.
The unfortunate reality is that the strategy of responsible editorial policy to avoid insult of religion faces real challenges, particularly in the West. The question is, do institutions like Charlie Hebdo make an effort to factor in the historical and social in their work? Does this magazine take note of the arming, training, and remote controlling of the mercenaries and beheaders by the West?
Is the religion of Islam a planned target in post-Cold War Europe? Should a supposedly tolerant society continuously caricature the prophet of its minority population and still boast of its democratic credentials?
The mayhem in Paris must be condemned without hesitation and in an unqualified manner. However, there should be distinction between mourning and championing Charlie Hebdo as a bastion of free speech. Ridiculing explicitly a fundamental fabric of Muslim culture is unabashed cultural incitement and thoughtless journalism. The discerning minds shall have a problem with Charlie Hebdo.
The writer is a columnist of The Daily Star.
Comments