12 people have lost their lives representing and defending
their ideologies. 17 more have been injured in the process of resisting what
some refer to as “…religious totalitarianism.”
Shifting values in a time where ‘isms’ seems to be the flavour of the decade; did
not bode well for those who have been killed and injured in France on January
7th, 2015.
Hebdo Journalist Laurent Léger stated in a Time Magazine
article that, “We (reserve the right and) want to laugh at the extremists — every extremist. They can be Muslim,
Jewish, Catholic. Everyone can be religious, but extremist thoughts and acts we
cannot accept.”
Ideas have a price, and the French continue to pay for them…in blood. And the world continues to
re-affirm through vigils and demonstrations fundamental beliefs that, “…Secular
values for all, and the promotion of freedom and equal opportunity…” should
become the mantra for all of humanity. Charlie Hebdo caricatures goes beyond
the pale. While some find their subject matter amusing, funny and deserving of
ridicule; others take exception to the fact that their faith and religious
beliefs are being used as a form of entertainment.
So far the vast majority of Frenchmen agree
that secular values trump religious values. Value…What
an interesting word. By its current definition the value of a life means very
little these days. A cheap commodity; exchanged by every political and
religious governing faction in the world. Having world leaders in unison marching in the
streets of Paris is a great visual falsification of that truth.
The distinction between radical Islamists and those who
practice the faith of Islam is dwindling. It has escalated to the point where
freedom of religion rights are being openly challenged. Media outlets are
directly taking Islam itself to task. Columnist John Robson for Sun Media
explains his argument in this fashion.
“…I think the ban even on depicting him, let alone criticizing him, is rank idolatry. There. Did you get all that? I don’t like Mohamed or the Qur’an, and I’ll mock them when, where, and how I like.”
Provocation is never a good defense. Charlie Hebdo and Robson
media pundits (and the like) are projecting Western
values. Insisting that they are above and beyond reproach smacks of conceit.
Responsibility lies from within. To act in favor or against, to protest or to
be silent, to have others dictate a course of action or to resist actions made
on our behalf.
Charlie Hebdo seems to be
acting on behalf of us all; and standing in solidarity with them…we are equally
responsible for its consequences. There is a growing rationalization among western societies that
free speech is in fact a ‘right’; which includes the ability for anyone to
mock, deride, satirize, politicize, sexualize, and dehumanize what and who they
see fit. Does this ‘right’ include full indemnity?
Caricatures printed in Charlie Hebdo are offensive. Rejecting
terrorist acts of violence by Al Qaeda and the Taliban should not include ways
to incite law abiding citizens who practice the faith of Islam…Or any other for
that matter. Reactionary spontaneous action such as #jesuischarlie is endearing. Identifying ourselves with the victims and resisting
terrorist acts is laudable. But as a society we have to examine the limitations
of our civil liberties and the scope of its powers. Just because we have the
ability to offend doesn’t mean we should.
The French are fast adopting Charlie Hebdo as their own
terrorist brand…their own 9/11. Galvanizing
French sentiment against terrorist groups will certainly assist the French
government to control and sanction its own brand of violence. The push to democratize the Middle East and other Arab nations will continue; but is it
really a viable solution?
Khaled Hroub is the Director of Cambridge University’s Arab
Media Project and is of the opinion that western governments are playing devil’s
advocate.
“In a nutshell, it was much easier in the post-colonial Middle East for the West to do business with un-democratic regimes where deals could be made without accountability or transparency. The result of this decades-long trade-off has been the transformation of cultural specificity pretext into a (somehow racist) alienation of local democratic and liberal forces and a paving of the way for the rise of Islamist radicalization.”-The West’s hollow talk of Arab democracy.
Hroub explains how US foreign policy is influencing the
Middle East western agenda, “…. (The push for) reform and democracy has been
used more often than not as a threat, a typical message being: “help out in the
war against Iraq or we press for democracy and human rights in your own
country. An Arab message in return would be: “stop pressing on the reform issue
or we won’t cooperate in the ‘war on terror’!”
Attributing its effectiveness to offend and incite Jihadists;
Charlie also has blood on its hands. As the world continue to express its
indignation and stoic affirmation that its cause against Islamist radicals is a
just one; no one living in the western hemisphere should expect anything less
from Arab nations who feel equally justified in resisting western influence…by any means necessary.
Nathan J. Brown is the Professor of political science and
international affairs at George Washington University and senior associate at
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and wrote a commentary in reply
to Hroub’s opinion piece.
“This discussion usually leads directly to the familiar question of whether the West should “engage” with Islamists? The answer is that this is the wrong question. The right ones are: “What can the West do to encourage Arab regimes to engage with Islamists?” and “How can the West encourage Arab regimes to allow reformers to convert armchair theorizing into effective – but non-revolutionary – mobilization?” Engagement must be among competing political visions in the Arab world. Western policymakers can help in modest ways, and if they fail to do so they risk continued political cynicism and radicalism in the region. And even if they opt to do so they must be aware that the pay-off may be a generation away.”
It is easy to point the finger. It is much harder to point
the finger at ourselves and admit that our actions have consequences. Judging
by Charlie’s latest edition, that lesson still needs to be learned.
No comments:
Post a Comment