#OnFreedomOfSpeech(1) Prowling Using Freedom? The terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris, France, killing seventeen people in totality (considering the hostages killed), the worst of it in recent time in the history of the French people, attracted understandable outrage, and the whole world is standing in solidarity with the French people. We mourn the dead, we console the bereaved, and we solidarize with writers and cartoonists, globally! In weighty and unequivocal tone, we condemn the barbarity and savagery of the theocratic fascists in the garb of ISIS, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and all franchises of blood-sucking demons, parading themselves as litigators of God on earth. The world has shown again that, for the umpteenth time, it is unrepentant in its advocacy to ensure it becomes safe and habitable for all men irrespective of their colour, religion and race –reinforcing equality, liberty and fraternity, as the France motto reads. In equal measure, evidently, this recent attack has awakened a global debate on freedom generally, and free speech specifically. This becomes a reaction to set in perspective the global outcry depicting that the attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attack on freedom, an attack on free speech. To draw the magnitude of such unacceptable ‘jihad’ on the free speech phraseology, a world match was conveyed, dubbed France unity match. In attendance was Benjamin Neyantahu of Isreal, Mahmoud Abass of Palestine, Boni Yaya of Benin Republic, Abd-Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, amongst other world leaders, echoing the message: guns cannot silent pens! In the same vein, an unignorable counter-narration is also oozing from the media, suggesting that the world is not monolithic in the definition of free speech, its boundary, and who to adjudicate on what amounts to hate speech, insulting and tasteless arts, racist and Islamophobic caricature, and all that Charlie Hebdo is accused of. To be clear, the Muslims’ (or Muslims-populated) countries –citing Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Brunei –are not disposed to the idea of ‘free speech’. Islamic governance models are individually adapted as it suits these individual countries’ specificities, and none, without any fear of contradiction, allows free speech, especially in the popular context of Western nuance, as it affects religion. The only difference, as I have observed, is the punishment to the perceived blasphemy -ranging from death sentence, imprisonment, flogging, as determined by the Sharia courts. I said: perceived blasphemy, because, usual of theocracy and states controlled by political clericalism, anything can be turned to blasphemy, either to blackmail dissidents, to silent critics, and to coerce citizens, in order for the political class to remain immune against public scrutiny. For example, a simple query like: Don’t you think there is a relationship between the Ifa worshippers (Ifa is a traditional religion in Africa, commonly among the Yoruba in Nigeria) and Muslims during the Hajj rites has once earned me the charge of blasphemy, and the accuser even went to the extent of sending death threat. The point is: ‘No freedom of speech’ is also not self-explicit. What are we not to say? And what determines this, on a global standard? Or is it to be determined by respective countries? The only ‘beauty’ is that the Muslims’ world is not ashamed to inform those who want to know that Freedom, Liberty is purely Western conceptions, and not acceptable in their ranks, feigning ignorance of the fact that Islam would not have been spreading in Europe, if not for the benefit of the same free speech. On the other hand, the Western worlds, led by US, Britain, France, Germany, and other allies, present in the France Unity march, especially Egypt, have exposed themselves to the charge of hypocrisy and double standard, or an accomplice in Islamophobia. How do we relativize a legal provision or societal reaction that supports Charlie’s sack of Sine, one of its cartoonists charged with anti-Semitism, and literally absolves the same Charlie of racism when it depicts a particular black Minister of France as monkey? How do we conceptualize Netayathahu’s discomfort, when certainly in Israel, making mockery of religious symbols is unlawful, but the same number one citizen of the State of Israel is in France for unity march, blatantly promoting limitless ‘free speech’? How do we contextualize the Britain’s free speech, where you cannot criticize the royal family, especially the Queen? Without losing any sense of objectivity, how do we explain al-Sisi’s countenance, a man whose government jailed journalists (al-Jazeera staffs), and recently docked a man that professes “there is no God”? To assume this alleged hypocrisy and double standard of free speech (or what is not free speech) is peculiar to the Western countries are their ally is also to be magnificently hypocritical, in its own terms. What would be defined as hypocrisy other than situations where Muslims can say “Jesus is a mere mortal, not God”, and one risks the charge of blasphemy when one says “Muhammad is just a mere philosopher, poet and possibly magician”? Or would it be pardonable to pray “Allah demolishes Jews and Christians”, but frown at “all Muslims are terrorists that should be killed”? –alleging it is stereotype, or Islamophobic. I mean: who determines what is offensive, who draws the limit of free speech and its characterization? How do we come to terms, as individual countries, or a single member of humanity on what is free speech and what is not? Is an objective standard feasible and plausible, or are we continuing prowling on the weak ones in our respective countries, using free speech, abusing free speech, or restraining free speech? ~Ibn Qalam
Posted on: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 06:58:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015