Because I understand that freedom of expression, like all freedoms, has limits, and it is bullying to ridicule other people’s beliefs, and because unlike Charlie Hebdo’s lawyer, I do not recognize the "right to blasphemy" or insult, I maintain that the abominable massacre of the 12 journalists of the said newspaper was more an attack on the rule of law than on freedom of expression per se.
The Politically Incorrect "But"
Being against is not always a defect, and being in favor is not always a virtue. "Following the crowd" can be synonymous with solidarity, but it can also be a form of sheepishness that nullifies individual thought, turning people into a mass, and often a brute mass that has lynched many innocent people throughout history, one of them being Jesus of Nazareth. In order to exist as autonomous, free, and independent people, we must keep our critical spirit alert and not uncritically join in with those who shout the loudest.
My condemnation of the horrendous massacre of the twelve journalists does not mean I agree with all the cartoons they have produced; nor does the fact that, in my opinion, they have sometimes, not always, abused freedom of expression mean that I justify the appalling crime perpetrated by the two savage extremists. I do not join the chorus of those who say "Je suis Charlie," even at the risk of being politically incorrect, in other words of being a black sheep, because I think I can and have the right to condemn the act without having to identify myself ‘totally’ with Charlie.
When I say "Je ne suis pas Charlie," I mean that although I identify with the victims, as human beings who had their lives unjustly taken, I do not identify with the blasphemy, insult, and ridicule in some of their cartoons.
There is no such thing as Absolute Freedom
There are no unlimited freedoms; my freedom would only be more or less unlimited if I existed alone in the world. Since I coexist with others, my rights are limited by the rights of others. In fact, my rights coincide with the duties of others and vice versa; my freedom, therefore, ends where someone else's freedom begins.
I condemn with the utmost vehemence any attack on human life, from legalized abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, to all forms of physical, sexual, verbal, and psychological violence. Violence is rarely the solution to any problem, and always creates more problems, because violence always begets violence. This is called a spiral of violence, because as it grows in intensity, it spreads by involving more and more people in the same conflict.
We all know that those who were physically, sexually, verbally, or psychologically abused as children often become abusers themselves as adults. It is also well known that when two or more people are in conflict, physical violence almost always follows verbal violence, insults, and slander.
Human life is a gift from God; only God has power over life and death. Anyone who takes the life of their fellow human being is stealing a prerogative that belongs to God alone; by putting themselves in the place of God, they are being atheists. Therefore, it is impossible to kill in the name of God, who is life and love.
The spokesperson for the Muslim Judicial Council issued a statement saying, "Freedom of expression is to be respected, but it has limits when it borders on what could be perceived as hate speech. If someone criticizes your workplace, your car, your shoes, there's no problem; but when someone insults, humiliates, or degrades a personality that is central to the heart of the Muslim religion, they exceed the limits of freedom of expression."
Let me cite some examples of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, which in my opinion abuse the right to freedom of expression: there is one that depicts the Prophet Mohammed with a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse about to explode — the subliminal message being that Islam, in its essence, is violent, extremist, and terrorist, which is false.
Another depicts the Pope lifting the host at the moment of consecration, but instead of the host, it is a condom—I classify this cartoon as a blasphemy against the Eucharist, which is the central act of the Church's life, and I do not see how any Christian can look at it without feeling terribly offended.
Among the cartoons I agree with, I would like to praise the one on the cover of the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo in the aftermath of the murders. With a green background, the color most used on the flags of many Muslim countries, we see the Prophet Mohammed weeping, holding in his hands the popular poster which reads "Je suis Charlie", and above it, in clearly visible letters, "Tout est Pardonnė" (All is forgiven).
Since unconditional forgiveness to those who harm us and love of enemy are characteristics of Christianity, this cover is the best response that the Western world, which is Christian at its roots, whether it recognizes it or not, can give to the barbarity of Muslim extremism. I fully identify with this cartoon.
An Attack on the Rule of Law, Rather Than Freedom of Expression
I would argue that the interpretation of the facts as an attack on freedom of expression, although it is the official and politically correct stance, is in my opinion biased. With their heinous and unjustifiable act, the killers of the journalists went against the rule of law rather than against freedom of expression. In a state governed by the rule of law, no one takes the law into their own hands, no one takes revenge; no one is a judge in their own cause, and no one executes sentences — in this case, the maximum sentence, the death penalty.
The injured party, the Muslim world, could have defended itself in the courts. This time, instead of using the money to finance the fanatic terrorists who kill innocent people like the 12 journalists, the Muslim countries could have used it to hire the best lawyers to take Charlie Hebdo to court for blasphemy, insult, and lack of respect for the beliefs of millions of people.
Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC
No comments:
Post a Comment