 |
| A sign of solidarity and support for the illustrators at Charlie Hebdo |
The world, well most of it I hope, have woken up to the
debate on freedom of expression sparked by heinous terror attacks in Paris
which have left 17 dead and the rest of the western worlds security services on
high alert.
Amongst the victims were 12 incredibly brave illustrators
from Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine based in Paris, well known for its
bold and controversial publications. Utilising satire Charlie Hebdo have
ridiculed the Catholic Church, Judaism, Islam, and a host of politicians; in
2011 the magazine published an illustration depicting the Muslim prophet
Mohammed with the caption ‘100 lashes if you are not dying of laughter’
attached to it provoking outrage and leading to the magazines headquarters
being bombed by Islamist extremists. Despite the bombing Charlie Hebdo’s
illustrators were left undeterred, Stephane Charbonnier the magazine’s
editor-in-chief who died in the Paris terror attacks said simply ‘we won’t let
it get to us.’ Later in 2012 speaking at time of heightened tensions between Islamist
extremists Charbonnier was reported saying ‘the accusation that we are pouring
oil on the flames in the current situation really gets on my nerves... a
cartoon never killed anyone.’
 |
| German Chancellor, Anegla Merkel |
Angela Merkel held the incidents
in Paris ‘an attack on freedom of expression and the press – a key component of
our free democratic culture- which cannot be justified.’ One is inclined to
agree with Merkel; this absolutely is an attack on a right, we as a continent,
hold so dearly. The illustrators at Charlie Hebdo, despite the risks and
threats they continued to receive, courageously exercised their right of
freedom of expression by publishing incredibly controversial illustrations when
many others, were simply too scared to do so. Whether it is fear for one’s own
life which prevents them from being openly critical or fear of backlash from
others, it seems the nonchalance; nerve the French illustrator possessed is not
evident in much of society today. Yet, societies concerns regarding freedom of
expression seem to be more evident now following the death of the illustrators,
than ever before given the importance and scale of the debate. If we didn’t
care, we simply would not discuss it.
Freedom of expression according to Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights is a qualified right. It requires a balance to be established between the rights of the individual and the needs of the wider community and state interest. The question arises whether one should do away with political satire and consequently freedom of expression to avoid antagonising the complex issue of terrorism? Thereby avoiding casualties? Whilst I see the merits in taking such a stance I’m of the opinion that the answer is a resounding NO.
Satire, which is the form used by
the illustrators at Charlie Hebdo, is the use of humour, irony, exaggeration or
ridicule to expose and criticise people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in
the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. It dates back to
500BC Athenian dramas, which were played out during intervals to relieve the
seriousness of tragic plays. The pieces were aimed specifically at opposing and
parodying the tragedy. Many condemn absolute freedom of expression, former French
President Jacques Chirac takes the view that ‘anything that can hurt the
convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be
avoided.’ Opponents see satire and the publications of Charlie Hebdo as
meaningless, scapegoating, bullying and stereotyping. As they say it is offensive and therefore, should be subject to limitations. However, the objective of
satire is to allow people to engage in a contentious issue through laughter, to
‘lighten the situation up’ as it were which I am all for. Insecurities in the
varying facets of society are always going to be prevalent, so why not use
laughter and a light-hearted tone to approach what would otherwise
being an incredibly awkward conversation.
While, the Catholic Church,
Muslims, Jews and those who have found
themselves the subject of satire may strongly disagree and brand satirical
publications as mere blasphemy. Guardian journalist Henry Porter, argues that
it is ‘really important that we understand the difference between blasphemy and
satire, there is a line to draw there not offending people just for the sake of
it... we should regard ourselves as being responsible.’ It is easy for one to
accept this view, but where does one draw the distinction between what is
light-hearted satire and what is blasphemy? By imposing limitations on freedom
of expression might society not become artificially tolerant, passive
aggressively accepting one another’s views in order to avoid risking offence
and thus, creating a false sense of harmony?
University College London Professor John
Mullan notes, great satire wouldn’t
get written if there wasn’t something wrong to write about. In the context of
the French terror attack, whether one agrees or not with the publications of
Charlie Hebdo, it is clear, that the illustrators felt passionate about their profession, so much so that they were willing to risk their lives. Although as Guardian Cartoonist Martin Rowson
articulates ‘we (satirical cartoonists) aren’t engaged in constructive
debates, that is not what we do, you don’t have constructive debates by drawing
stupid cartoons of the prime minister with a big nose... that is an essential,
foul mouthed part of the political process.’ Whether satirical publications
engage in constructive debate or not, we cannot prevent a person from
expressing their view simply because we disagree. If it were the case, one
would have to question the democratic society we live in, which would be one
where everyone is taught to think and feel the same things. Ultimately, it is
only the person voicing the views who can take responsibility for them, and
they should always have the right to do so. What’s more, one should not take
offence when an opinion is expressed contrary to their belief, because it is
neither fact nor truth. Despite Satirist seeming to tar everyone with the same
brush, a genuine sense of security in ones beliefs should mean you are
undeterred by criticism and willing to engage in public debate regardless.
In a diverse society, one can
only hope to create cohesion through understanding, tolerance and frank
discussion on matters of genuine concern. Satire paves the way to do this, by
either making people laugh about a subject they would otherwise consider taboo
or by prompting them to engage in constructive debate.
