“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”. - Voltaire

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.

'Dont Kill Your Wives, Let Us Do It!'

Ordinarily, while in the car with my mum I tend to nod off and consequently miss anything particularly eventful going on in the world outside. However, the other day amidst the usual blaring of my brother’s music (which differs substantially from my personal taste in music), comical remarks on how he’d make an excellent driving instructor and my sister singing at the top of her voice in a strange accent which she believed to be similar to that of Beyoncé. I noticed a sign which read ‘don’t kill your wives, let us do it’ to my utter relief it was not an advertisement for those who wished to hire a hit man to kill their wives (though it may well have been since it was so degrading!) – Instead it was an advertisement for a laundrette.  My brother found it hilarious. My mother did not really seem shocked about it, but I, I WAS HORRIFIED! What was most horrifying was the owners of the laundrette genuinely believed the advertisement would entice customers into visiting the laundrette, for want of saving their wives from death resulting from exhaustion due to all of the laundry she does! The pun used by the laundrette reinforces the negative stereotypes of women that we are all familiar with. The blatant disregard for female achievement and accomplishment is evident. Whilst, I recognise the pun to many is JUST a comical and light-hearted advertisement. It is in my view a gender stereotype which is representative of a darker issue underlying society today.

Throughout the 21st century we have seen middle-class feminists criticise and challenge gender stereotypes. Highlighting the ‘glass ceiling’ which exists in the work place or reiterating anecdotes of the sexist comments they have fallen victim to. So why are gender stereotypes such a bad thing? They are not only counter-productive reinforcing to women that they are merely beautiful objects of domestic machinery. Gender stereotypes create what I refer to as a ‘destructive cycle’. To illustrate this destructive cycle I shall give you an example, take the common view that women are merely there to perform domestic tasks and remain subservient. If a women adheres to this, which many in society do (believe it or not) then she is likely to favour these menial tasks over of education. Not only then does this women become bitter over time, having seen nothing more to life than that of her daily tasks, she will also become narrow minded, ignorant and de-valued. By favouring menial tasks over education she will be prevented from looking beyond the constraints of society, to develop and evolve. Surely, when the Suffragettes fought for universal franchise they did so, because they had hoped opinionated, well informed women would vote and potentially enter parliament?

Moreover, the counter-productive stereotype will create a woman of ignorance, who will fragment the unity of females as a whole, as she will be unable to empathise with females who do not wish to conform.  Please, do not get me wrong, I am an advocate of self-help. Truly, I believe that it is only when one becomes reliant on their own ability that they will be able to progress successfully through life. However, how is it that a female who, due to a lack of education, who has become narrow minded and ignorant, able to realise her own potential? She will not. Consequently, the feminist movement will never progress as it should, as women who conform to these counter- productive stereotypes will look upon other women with jealousy, resentment and dislike. There will be no solidarity. This leads me further to my next point on the devaluing nature of gender stereotypes.

Lastly, and perhaps most seriously, gender stereotypes, are not only a surface level problem which is degrading and discouraging. – Reinforcing that a female is merely there to be tasked with domestic chores. It can also be incredibly destructive, as Dr Pillay, speaking for Amnesty International at a conference in Afghanistan emphasises ‘violence against women is endemic’; across the world, not only third world countries but also in the developed western world.  Violence against females is rife. To illustrate this point I am reluctant to quote any statistics as I am certain it will not reflect the true picture. Many women simply do not have a sense of self-worth; domestic violence goes largely unreported as a result of this. Women feel as though by speaking out they will be acting contrary to the stereotypes, their narrow-mindedness leads them to believe perhaps that they are deserving of such treatment or that it is entirely normal. All of which will create a bitter cycle as many of these women will have daughters, they will teach their daughters to conform to these stereotypes and the cycle will continue.

On a brighter note, the issue of gender stereotypes has not fallen beneath the waist line and we are making headway. With the help of celebrity endorsement I am certain society will overcome this ill. Below is a picture of Angelina Jolie in a tailored suit at the BAFTA awards, Jolie unlike other female celebrities opted for a suit – arguably quite a masculine look. Despite the masculine tailoring, Jolie looks chic, feminine and stylish without wearing a dress! - Kudos to her. 

A little about who I am...

So, I'm a law student of 19 years studying in London. I've lived in the Olympic city of Stratford my entire life. I attended the local state school and later progressed to a catholic Sixth Form College. It was here that my interest in politics and current affairs was ignited; having been inspired by both my politics teacher and my colourful surroundings. At sixth form I studied English Literature, History and Government and Politics. London is a notoriously ' multi-cultural' city and I, being a British Indian, I guess,  reflect this. I'm Sikh also; and a fiscal conservative/socialist. Though, it is a word that all too often is given a negative light, I am a proud FEMINIST!- Yes- I said it, I am a feminist. I'm not a man hating lunatic (as I love my father dearly) quite simply I believe that Men and Women are equal. In addition to all of this, my part-time job is a tutor; I practice martial Arts and enjoy skiing. 

As my studies in history have taught me, and what with being a student of law I'm aware of how important the provenance of any source is. Whether it be a blog, an image, an article, a piece of literature, a diary or a piece of academic writing, it is through understanding the environment of the reader, their political, religious and moral beliefs that one will be able to fully understand the opinion that is being formed. What has shaped that opinion and either empathise with, or criticise the opinion that is being expressed. - The former I hope will be the case in this instance. The above being said, I do not wish to commit entirely to the views which I will illustrate. As like society, my views may change. I will do as best I can to provide a neutral argument; which in parts is due to my natural disposition- as a law student we're obliged to give a balanced argument and conclusions, we are told, are a BAD thing! 

Ultimately, I hope my blog will  be insightful and thought provoking. Which I hope will always end on a positive note- looking at things from a positive  perspective I believe lifts the spirits and lessens life's burdens. I look forward to engaging in informed, intellectual, open-minded and sometimes controversial arguments with those that read my blog...

Thank you for taking your time to read a little about the blogger...

Yours faithfully,

Sukveer