Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine printed from Paris, is again in the international news. This January, it published objectionable cartoons caricaturing our Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). This has inflamed passions across the Muslim world. It also led to twelve people including two French policemen being gunned down. The killing was a heinous act that is condemnable and cannot on any count be supported. This, however, is not the first time that Charlie Hebdo has done so. In 2006, its decision to reprint inflammatory cartoons of our Prophet (pbuh), which were originally published in a Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten, was described by the then French president as a 'manifest provocation.' The magazine continued to provoke the sentiments of the Muslims and the result has been this tragedy now.

Two days back, an op-ed by former Danish Prime Minister Anders Foch Rasmussen was printed in a local newspaper. He supported Charlie Hebdo for its “right to free speech” and for printing what it considered to be appropriate. It was, unfortunately, not a correct stance taken by a learned person. In fact, it showed the moral bankruptcy which many are suffering from. The sad killing of some employees of Charlie Hebdo, which included the editor as well as the principal cartoonist, was followed by quick reprisal. All the assassins were killed by the French police soon after.

Now that the tit-for-tat was delivered by the French authorities, it is time to understand why the three assassins were keen to stop Charlie Hebdo in its tracks. Were they justified or did they go overboard?

There is no denying that the initial mayhem was wrong. These three had no right to take the lives of the cartoonists, the editor and the policemen. But the moot question remains. Why did Charlie Hebdo lampoon the Holy Prophet (pbuh)? Its answer is that the satirical magazine had been caricaturing whoever it found convenient, including Jesus Christ as well as Jews and French politicians. So, Charlie Hebdo thought it was not doing anything wrong by ridiculing the Prophet of Islam (pbuh). It said that this was continuing an old French tradition of free speech which began immediately after the French Revolution in 1789.            

What kind of conclusion can the world draw about France and its treatment of French Muslims, who are the largest in number in the European Union? Some 60% of France's present prison population of 68,000 are Muslims, as mentioned in a French parliamentary report last year. If this is so, Charlie Hebdo is working hard to prove that it is the teaching of Islam's Prophet (pbuh) that has led followers to commit crimes in France. This is utter nonsense, and French leaders should take steps so that the world does not get this impression. It is the increasing marginalisation of Muslim immigrants that is the cause behind so many Muslims being criminalised there. It is the failure of the French policy in creating an inclusive society that is reflected in so many Muslims being in prisons in France.

The important point is that Charlie Hebdo has no business to trash any religion or community just to continue a French tradition. The matter of free speech is dear to all people around the world. All communities have precious history of their own sacrifices, including giving up their lives to protect free speech. It is not just a French tradition only. What is clear is that the freedom to speak should not impinge on the right of other individuals to hold and cherish some of their sacred beliefs. No one should have the right to punch another person on the nose. Because that is the point where an attacker's right ends. The attacked then has the right to counter punch.

Charlie Hebdo has been punching the nose of Muslims, Jews and Christians repeatedly. In fact, it is taking liberties arrogantly in areas where it is not legally or ethically allowed. Pope Francis only this week pointed this out while answering questions about Charlie Hebdo. The French mainstream should take note and should not allow Charlie Hebdo to repeat the mistake. Already, the magazine has repeated the folly by printing a 'survivor' issue, which seems to have been sold out many times over. In their enthusiasm to celebrate their right to free speech they have overlooked the fact that they have trampled over the right of others who do not share their view.

In the 21st century we cannot feel proud of our perceptions which were relevant in the eighteenth century.

The writer is a former Ambassador and a commentator on contemporary issues.  
E-Mail :[email protected]