‘Edgy and provocative’ - that is how most people interpret
the cartoons that provoked the terrorist attack on the French weekly satirical
newspaper Charlie Hebdo.
Indeed, the terrorist attack is a lamentable act of defiance,
especially in a world where the supposed champions of liberal democracy bombard
the news with who is supposed to express and protect ‘freedom of speech’.
But in a world where the concept of the ‘clash of
civilizations’ is screaming its urgency, the political right to one’s opinion
is sadly becoming a tool to circumvent what would otherwise be a morally
questionable act that is not acceptable in a different culture.
For his part, and despite being absent in the Paris Unity
march where some 50 world leaders rallied to defy violence, Obama expressed his
“deepest sympathy and solidarity to the people of France following the terrible
terrorist attack in Paris”. Earlier, the US president said that “the fact that
this was an attack on journalists, attack on our free press, also underscores
the degree to which these terrorists fear freedom of speech and freedom of the
press…a universal belief in the freedom of expression, is something that can’t
be silenced because of the senseless violence of the few.”
Thus to sum what he stands for, Obama, and the West made us
believe that they are the standard bearer of what a free society should be – a society
where the freedom of speech (and criticism) can be in any form, no matter how
offensive.
When others are not entitled to defy satirical narrative
Just back in December, a cyber-attack was launched against
Sony Pictures when a preview of their satirical movie “The Interview” was
leaked and the Western mainstream media quickly branded the attacks as ‘state
sponsored terrorism’, which was blamed on North Korea.
In the movie, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is shown to be
the target of an assassination. Following the news of the attacks, the US
president was quick to blame the cyber-attack to have originated from North
Korea.
From a moral standpoint, a society that reacts emotionally
to a depiction of their leader as having been a target of harm should be
understandable. Simply put, such depiction of harm, even in a satirical manner,
is not a laughing matter. How would Americans react if Obama was put in the
same satirical narrative?
Freedom of expression should have limitations
For all its complexities, the least that a government should
guarantee is to confine, if not limit, the concept of political expression. There
is no denying that freedom of speech is one of the qualities of a democratic
society. Conversely, to avoid clashing with other cultures, it is best for governments
to confine freedom of expression to their own borders – that is to encourage
freedom of speech on domestic matters while limiting speech that might provoke
other societies. Thus, the recent Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks have shown
that out-of-control freedom of speech should have its own limits. In this case,
it is clear that Muslims did not ‘buy’ what is supposed to be a ‘joke’.
As opposed to the West’s call for the ‘protection of freedom
of expression’, it might be that the opposite should be what their society
should pursue: to shut up, mind their own business, and avoid offending others.
Indeed, moral relativism has its own perils: the West should start
realizing this if they are to avoid harm, in a satirical manner or otherwise.