Difficult time is upon us. Following the widespread outpouring of support for freedom of opinion and the right to express it, now comes the time of confusion, within the EU and more so in its relations with surrounding countries and beyond. It is essential and urgent for clarity to be restored and for misunderstandings to be overcome. If not, the enthusiasm for the right of each and every one of us to express his/her ideas could swiftly be replaced by incomprehension and discord.
Following the dramatic events in France, which had an impact in Europe and across the world, the initial reaction was widespread and almost passionate. However, misunderstandings quickly began to appear and spread. Why? For the sake of simplicity, we could say that the confusion was caused by how the slogan “I am Charlie” was interpreted. Initially, it was clear to all that this slogan was being used in direct reference to the fact that those who worked for the weekly Charlie Hebdo were the victims of the first murders because of the content of their publication. The aim, therefore was to affirm the freedom for each of us to express his/her ideas, whether these ideas are shared by others or not. It was about stating a principle but in no way offering specific support to the publication.
Confusion. The objective of the slogan was thereafter misunderstood! At times it was interpreted as an invitation to share the opinions and views of Charlie Hebdo when, in fact, it was exactly the opposite: it was a statement of the right of each of us to express his/her opinion, including, of course, the right to reject or criticise, even vigorously, the content and opinions of Charlie Hebdo. A misinterpretation of this sort distorts the meaning of the slogan “I am Charlie” to the extent that one may wonder if now it wouldn't be better to discard it. It leaves itself open to all sorts of misunderstanding. It provided Pope Francis, for example, with the opportunity to say that no one should be allowed to insult another's beliefs. In his view, even freedom of expression should have its limits, because all religions have their dignity (clearly) so poking fun at religion must not be allowed (something that would be clearly at odds with the objective pursued, as limits would be put on freedom of expression).
Reactions. Misunderstanding erupted when the first edition of Charlie Hebdo after the Paris attacks, which went on sale in at least 25 countries with a print run of five million apparently, once again carried a caricature of the prophet Mohammed. To do so was, of course, the right the owners of the weekly, in line with the principles above. But can one be surprised if the Muslim world did not understand and reacted? In North Africa, this special edition was not sold in news-stands and in the Middle East its sale was banned. Al Azhar, Sunni Islam's highest authority, called for the drawings to be ignored, arguing that insults stoke hatred rather than peaceful coexistence between peoples. The most moderate Muslim authorities held that it was unwise to strengthen the view that the West is against Islam. In Algeria, where the attack on Charlie Hebdo was explicitly condemned, a newspaper which also owns a television channel, coined the slogan “We are all Mohammed”. In Turkey a court even ordered that internet pages carrying the caricature of Mohammed on the front page of Charlie Hebdo be blocked, stating that “freedom of expression does not give anyone the right to say anything he/she wishes”.
EU not allowing itself to be restricted. The slogan “I am Charlie” has fulfilled its purpose and it would be wise to move away from it. What Europe believes in is the right of us all to express our opinions freely, but it must be clear that this in no way means automatic support for every doctrine and any kind of behaviour (an impossibility anyway). The EU accepts all sorts of opinions, orientations and behaviours and has instruments to discuss, choose and act; in doing so, it takes account of the events and how they develop, not forgetting its budgetary difficulties.
Many Muslims, especially in France, after accepting and being part of the condemnation of the terrorists who besmirched France, no longer know where they are, because they have the impression that defence of freedom could lurch into rejection of their religion. This fear is not backed up by reality and they have to be reassured. The wife of cartoonist George Wolinski, one of those murdered in Paris on 7 January, said that her husband “never went to funerals. He said he didn't even want to go to his own”.
This is an example of the wit that we have to save, alongside freedom of expression.
(FR)