The terrorist attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine came as yet another shocking example of the impact of Islamic fundamentalistm on today's world. Nothing, absolutely nothing that offends us justifies murder. Admittedly that is a Western value, but it is one we would defend at all costs. Whether its New York, Bali, Nairobi, London, Mumbai, Boston, Sydney or any other location where attacks have taken place - nothing justifies the murder of innocent people.
But this evening, not for the first time, a deep unease has come over me. In September 2012 after Charlie Hebdo published cartoons that were inflammatory and offensive to millions of Muslims, I wrote about the limits of freedom of speech. You can read that post here [what price free speech?] and I’d invite you to do so.
I stand by what I wrote. Back then I beieved innocent men and women would die because of their publications. What I didn't anticipate was that the victims would be the publishers themselves. I deplore that they have been killed and the world is a poorer place because evil has again manifested itself. They had the right to publish.
But freedom of speech has limits. Some of this is enshrined in law. I don't have the right to be hateful, racist, sexist, libelous or homophobic. Nor can I disclose State secrets.
And apart from these legal limitations, there have to be self-imposed limitations. I can't speak offensively to my next door neighbour and expect them to remain friends, to be there when I need help, or for them to greet me cheerfully the following morning. If I deliberately provoke my neighbour in ways that may not be illegal but are deeply offensive, and eventually they snap, is it not permissible to ask whether my actions were right? Further, what kind of neighbour does that make me? Am I a shining example of someone building up my community?
Tonight, more than once, I have heard it said that these cartoons were aimed at satirising radical Islam. Maybe so, but they offended millions of ‘ordinary’ Muslims too, many of whom cannot now say they are offensive because first they have to line up and be heard to condemn the killers. If they even attempt to ask whether there are limits to free speech they risk being branded as the enemy within. Muslims are caught in no-mans land between allegiance to their faith, and their desire to live in Western society. Of course they need to make accommodations for that, and they do. But is it not part of what it means to be a civilised society to do what we can to help them live here in peace.
The question I posed in 2012, and pose today in the wake of the Paris murders, is whether the freedom of speech that we claim we value, is best honoured simply by being offensive? I would rather we use our freedom of speech to challenge the tyranny of all that condemns millions to poverty, that constructs systems embodying injustice that blight the lives of whole generations, that prevents multitudes of people from accessing medical care and education and the freedom to live in peace. But too often we in the West are complicit in these injustices and so we look elsewhere for easier targets.
We are living in a generation when a cancerous corruption of Islam has emerged in the guise of fundamentalist or radical Islam. I want no accommodation to this vile perversion of so-called faith that has shown itself capable of no more than depraved violence.
But I believe we have been handed a most wonderful gift – its called freedom of speech.
It’s ours. It’s yours. Here – take it! Use it. But use it well for it is truly a precious thing.
David Kerrigan
David these are wise, careful and deeply Christian thoughts. I want to offer one or two comments if I may?
Freedom of speech does sometimes mean offending the deepest religious convictions of others even at the risk of death - the violent persecution and hostility of the magisterial Reformers against the Anabaptists was based on the conviction that they were blasphemers, a danger to society, and eliminating them was a divinely authorised duty. The freedom to challenge another person's religious absolutes is always a dangerous freedom. How far should such freedom to challenge absolutes be constrained because the form of the challenge is offensive, even deliberately provocative, and a possible response is murder to enforce silence or as retribution?
The galactic gulf that exists between satirical cartoon and bloody massacre is so great that it is difficult to interpret how such catastrophic effect relates to the alleged cause. Were the magazine staff foolish, reckless, picking a fight, arrogant, scurrilous? - yes, one or all of these. When satire is inevitably and deliberately offensive, intended to ridicule and rubbish and rob of credibility convictions which underpin a worldview, it invites response. The connection between cartoon and kalashnikov will always be a possibility. Should the cartoonist desist? Or tone it down? If they do, is that an accommodation to threatened and real barbarism? If they don't, are they entitled to cause general offence to a world faith shared by 20% of the global population?
As a Christian I am called to an ethic of language, relation-building and social responsibility. But what are the legitimate moral constraints on the core value of freedom of speech for a satirical magazine in 21st Century secularised Europe?
I affirm deeply what you are saying David - I have no better answers, and simply share the anguished questions of how we learn to live together in a dangerous world, lethal in its outbursts of religious violence.
Posted by: Jim Gordon | 08 January 2015 at 08:13
Jim, I share your anguish and therefore largely share your sentiments. I will claim my right to free speech also. My right to argue that an Islamic interpretation of God is incompatible with my Christian convictions. That the Koran is not, in my view, a higher scripture than the Bible. That Mohammad was not the greatest prophet of God but that Jesus was the eternally begotten ‘true God from true God’. That too will offend some, but I am not seeking to offend. I will argue respectfully. If some radical chooses to kill because I have caused offense, then I have died for a worthy cause.
In trying to formulate a Christian response, recognising the rights of those who published and the wrongs of those who killed, I am asking myself what can change the paradigm we are now locked into. Therefore I want to ask questions that flow out of my Christian view of the world.
If loving my neighbour means anything, should it not mean restraining my freedom to offend? Can we claim and exercise the right to mercilessly mock the most cherished beliefs of Muslims and simultaneously criticise Muslims for not integrating? Does our mockery encourage Muslims to remove the veil and see the West as their friend? Is our pride in our western liberal democratic society given its richest expression by offending those who have come amongst us as guests? Do we look like generous hosts?
As a Christian I am called to be a peacemaker and often that means restraining my rights. Turning the other cheek, if you like. That may be asking too much from secular writers, but it is a contribution to the debate we can make as Christians, especially in an environment when journalists have understandably closed ranks and few have dared to ask whether the actions of the magazine were entirely justified or appropriate.
Posted by: David Kerrigan | 08 January 2015 at 09:08
Thanks David. Yes to all of this - the challenge is for Christians to bear witness to a way of being in society that embodies respectful dialogue (Kenneth Cragg and Lesslie Newbigin are exemplars), kenotic hospitality shaped by generosity, welcome, conciliation and respect (cruciformity as Michael Gorman would call it - do you know that book David?), and the kind of peacemaking that is both receptive to the other, and resistant to all that despises that same other. Shalom David, and much blessing.
Posted by: Jim Gordon | 08 January 2015 at 09:23
You give a curious list of places where innocent people have been murdered: New York, Bali, etc. No mention of, say, Gaza City, Baghdad, Cairo, Oslo/Utøya or Newtown Connecticut, to pick a few off the top of my head.
Of course your list is about 'Islamic fundamentalism' - a broad catchall covering a highly diverse set of groups and individuals, whose main common features are that they are 'Muslim' and violent. 'Christian' and violent isn't part of that list, nor Western-recognised-state and violent.
Okay, on one level I am clearly being a bit snotty in the way I'm pointing this out. But I do seriously wonder if such apparent one-sidedness is the best approach to peacemaking? I also wonder at how easy it is to frame issues in a fundamentally slanted way within our own heads.
Posted by: BlackPhi | 08 January 2015 at 17:47
Blackphi, I'd like to think that the context of the sentence is clear insofar as I'm referring to places where Islamic fundamentalists have attacked innocent people. But feeling snotty is Ok, especially when our sentiments are so screwed up after the events of yesterday. I am not blind to the faults of my own people but that isn't what I was writing about. However, your comment is helpful as it helps me to see how others might read my list - for that, thanks.
Posted by: David Kerrigan | 08 January 2015 at 18:09
Freedom of speech is an essential part of our democratic values. I would not deliberately offend or be rude to anyone. I am a Christian and fiercely patriotic. The two world wars were fought for our freedom and values, and it cost our nation hugely in loss of human life. I think the problwm is that the cultures are so far apart, we will never live peacefully together in the real world. But I live by my democratic right to use freedom of speech. Sometimes that may cause offence, it is inevitable. When people offend me, I rise above it. In this country we do not murder someone because of an offensive remark. I will not be rude to people, but neither will I be tolerant. Why should we accept their rules, they should live by ours. I live in a CHRISTIAN country, and will never accept any faith which is not our faith.
Posted by: Mrs Beverley Ann Leese | 09 January 2015 at 21:44
Thanks Beverley
Posted by: David Kerrigan | 09 January 2015 at 22:04
My pleasure David. I believe that we are in Our Lord's final plan. This has been prophesised in the Bible. I have no fear of being murdered if it is done in the name of Christ. Like your goodself I would consider it a worthy cause. We would be with our Lord even sooner,we are in a win -win situation. I am not ashamed to confess the faith of CHRIST crucified. I live for him and him alone. Freedom of speech is exactly that. If we have to put limitations on that, it is no longer freedom of speech. God bless and keep you safe!
Posted by: Mrs Beverley Ann Leese | 10 January 2015 at 07:10