In the aftermath of last week’s massacre, there has been
huge debate about the right of the cartoonists to self-expression, even if some
consider its exercise to be offensive. I
saw the cartoons and read about the satirisation of Islam and Mohammed by
Charlie Hebdo. My immediate, gut
reaction to the satire was that it was out of order and that it would have
caused offence and anger immediately to any Muslim who saw it. Knowing, as I do, that some Muslims feel that
violence is justified against those who dishonour the reputation of their
founder, I would then have foreseen a significant possibility of a terrorist
attack at some point. Clearly, this was the
state of knowledge also of the cartoonists who had been attacked also in 2011
and whose office building was subsequently monitored by police. So Charlie Hebdo cartoonists knowingly ran
the risk of becoming martyrs for the right to publish religious satire. The publication will continue for the time
being, it seems, and I see from the front page of the next issue that the satirising
of Islam will continue. So we have a
full-on “up-yours” to Islam.
So do we have the right to satire anyone and anything we
wish, irrespective of the anger and upset it causes? We do, if we elevate this right to the
highest-ranking right of all i.e. we make it an absolute right. In no other area of human rights do we claim
absolute rights. The right to life is
forfeited by people who threaten the lives of others or, in some jurisdictions,
who are convicted of murder. The right
to self-defence takes precedence in the first case and the right to public safety
in the second.
But what about the rights
of the innocent people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan who lost their lives
under the label of “collateral damage” in the US/UK-led “war on terror”? Do they have a reduced right to life because
of the sins of some of their compatriots and because we classify our strategies
for neutralising terrorism in the category of “war”?
What also about the rights of the peoples of numerous
countries in Asia, Africa and the Americas who were colonised, murdered in
their droves and impoverished by the colonisation of Western nations? Did we also think about their rights to
self-determination, freedom of religion and expression? Perhaps we look back and acknowledge quietly
the mistakes of our nations (though we often feel justified in reminding them
that we gave them trains and buildings at our expense). So have we made amends for the contravention
of these rights of so many people over so many decades, even centuries? Perhaps we should ask the people living there
now. They may not think so.
What about the right to food, clothing, shelter and
healthcare – surely these are fundamental human rights? Yes they are.
But are the rights of most Westerners to have excessive food, more clothes
than necessary, relatively luxurious houses and free healthcare at the point of
use absolute, when there are 100s of millions in other countries e.g. Iraq,
Sudan, who do not enjoy minimum levels in these crucial areas? Is there a huge, global injustice that needs
attention here? Or is it more important for starving Muslim Ethiopians to get
with the programme and appreciate the right to offensive satire against the
founder of their religion?
What about the right to political representation, education,
family life, work, and religious freedom?
I would agree that these are all fundamental human rights however, in
the absence of the more fundamental human rights such as life, food, and
shelter, they are fairly academic.
So, let’s come back to the original point. Where does the right to satire come in all of
this? Well, according to the leading politicians
and many ordinary people of Western Europe, it’s right up there at the top. It doesn’t matter if it offends, we are
expected to understand the context, even artistically notice our unpleasant reactions
and describe it as “edgy” or “spiky”. Even
those with almost tradition of satire e.g. the entire Muslim population of the
world c. 1 billion, must get up to speed with appreciation of satire, no matter
how poor or badly educated they might be.
However , if we wrote plain and simple abuse about Mohammed,
that would be wrong, discriminatory and make us worthy of punishment. Somehow, the cloak of
satire should lead us to rationalise that the satirists are really OK and not
anti-Muslim or anti-religious bigots, despite what our gut instincts might tell
us. Satirists prove their credentials on
this front by reserving the right to offend all religions
indiscriminately. Indiscriminate serial
killers are condemned for their psychopathic nature, however, the indiscriminate
nature of offensive satire should somehow lead us to look on satire more
benevolently.
So here’s my proposed solution to this problem. For the sake of the greater good and to
minimise the risk of offence and retaliation, satirists should find it within
themselves to declare a moratorium on offensive satire for the time being. During
this moratorium, we get to work addressing the lack of human rights across the
world – the rights to life, food, shelter, work, education, healthcare political
representation and family life, to name but a few. At the same time, the Western world should
examine its conscience and face up to the extent to which our societies have
been built upon the deprivation of basic human rights to the rest of the
world. We should change our trade system
so as not to penalise developing countries.
We should stop the accidental killing
the innocent civilians of regimes we don’t like. We should make restitution and heartfelt
apology for the huge numbers of people in poorer countries we have killed and
for the wealth and resources we have plundered from them.
Once we have done all this, and everyone in the world has a
reasonable standard of living, we could then deal with the fine print of what
it means to live in a democratic and tolerant society. At this point, I would recommend that
satirists sit down with Imams and politicians and have a honest and respectful
discussion about their respective positions on the satirising of Mohammed. Then, perhaps a workable consensus and
compromise can be drawn up which everyone can live with. One option could be that satirists in future
check with Islamic leaders whether or not their proposed satires are
acceptable.
