Are we really #JeSuisCharlie ? ....When Australians who march under the chic ‘‘Je suis Charlie’’ slogan start demanding we repeal section 18C, then they can claim legitimate solidarity with Charlie. Until then, their actions are feel- good gimmickry. Charlie Hebdo deserves the last word. In 2012, Gerard Biard, the newspaper’s editor-in-chief explained his magazine’s decision to publish the Mohammed cartoons: “If we say to religion, ‘You’re untouchable’ we’re f. ked.”........ FULL ARTICLE: ON Sunday in Paris, in cities across Europe, in Britain, the US and Australia too, people flocked to join marches declaring ‘‘Je suis Charlie’’. Good on them for showing solidarity with the French satirical magazine that, unlike most other news outlets, published cartoons about Mohammed in 2006, was firebombed in 2011, its offices and journalists targeted by Islamic terrorists last week when 12 people were murdered. Here in New York, a tiny shop on a street corner on SoHo has stuck up a ‘‘Je suis Charlie’’ poster in its dirty window. On a chilly New York day it warms your heart. It makes you feel good. But that’s all it does. We won’t win this long and sinister battle over Western freedoms with unity walks, neat slogans and hashtag trends on Twitter. Among the leaders standing shoulder to shoulder at the front of the free speech march in Paris on Sunday was Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry. How about he return home and release from prison journalists such as Peter Greste? Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu marched too. Perhaps he should admit that marching for free speech doesn’t sit well with Turkey holding a two-year record — ahead even of Iran and China — for jailing the most journalists. When Turkey reverses that record, it can hold its head high at free speech rallies. Anything less is shoddy grandstanding. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was on the streets of Paris too. Invigorated from leading the way in defending free speech, let’s hear the Chancellor declare back home that even difficult debates about immigration and integration must be had, that after all it’s the commitment to difficult debates that tests our resolve about free speech. Let’s hear Merkel remind us that free speech means defending the rights of those with views you find abhorrent, offensive, insulting. The easy part is agreeing with those who share your views. The rubber hits the road when debate gets sticky. Let’s hear the free speech Chancellor say that the thousands of Germans who recently gathered to protest their concerns about the Islamification of Germany are entitled to express their views. Barely two weeks ago Merkel appealed to people to stay away, saying the people organising these protests have cold hearts “often full of prejudice, and even hate”. Trying to stifle the debate, church leaders in Cologne turned off the lights of the local cathedral so the protests would be in the dark. In Dresden, the opera house bosses extinguished its lights too so protesters couldn’t be seen against the building. Turning off the lights sums up Europe’s cultural malaise, explaining why thousands of ordinary Germans joined extremists concerned about Europe’s mealy-mouthed commitment to Western values. And while Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott was not at the Paris march, he was quick to say, following the terrorist attacks, that we must never compromise our values in defending them. It’s a fine statement. But how does it sit with his decision to drop reforms of 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, a section that prohibits speech that is offensive, insulting, language that humiliates or intimidates? Section 18C is a direct hit on free speech in Australia. Section 18C feeds the marketplace of outrage where people are treated as victims and encouraged to scream loud to shut down debate they find offensive. Hence Andrew Bolt’s legitimate opinions were struck down when a judge, relying on section 18C, said he objected to the “tone” of Bolt’s column. The only difference with the attack in Paris is the terrorists opted for guns, rather than laws, to shut down offensive words and pictures. The means is different. The aim is the same. Former prime minister John Howard told me in an interview to be aired tomorrow night that he was disappointed when the Liberal Party shelved reform of 18C as too hard. Howard said he was encouraged by senior members of the party — including Attorney-General George Brandis — to publicly defend reforming section 18C, only to see the party dump free speech reform. Yes, sometimes it is hard defending free speech. Heart-warming statements are easy. Revitalised on the free speech front, now is the perfect time for the Abbott government to make the case for free speech, explaining why free speech matters, that free speech tests ideas, making the good ideas stronger and striking down the dumb ones, that shutting down speech creates martyrs, that speech that is offensive today is sometimes at the vanguard of progress tomorrow. So let’s not kid ourselves about unity marches and free speech slogans. Many of the people declaring “Je suis Charlie” are not Charlie. Not in the least. And more’s the pity. They have nothing in common with Charlie Hebdo and the iconoclastic offensiveness the French newspaper delights in causing to religion, to politicians, to pop culture and the rest. Because if they are Charlie, then surely they are also Michel Houllebecq, the French novelist hauled in front of a French court for inciting hatred. If they are Charlie, they are also Andrew Bolt and Mark Steyn. Yet there was no mass outrage about the free speech battles faced by Houllebecq, Bolt or Steyn. Instead, too many, especially on the Left, defend laws that restrict free speech. If the free speech walkers are Charlie, they are also Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Yet the Muslim-born writer is regularly criticised by the left intelligentsia as too provocative when she speaks out the importance of defending Enlightenment values. In April last year, 8 days after announcing it would award an honorary doctorate to Ali, a campaigner for women’s rights, Brandeis University cowered to critics and decided to pull the award. As Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Bernard Holtrop told a Dutch newspaper on the weekend, “we have a lot of new friends.” Holtrop then said “We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends … They’ve never seen Charlie Hebdo.” “A few years ago, thousands of people took to the streets in Pakistan to demonstrate against Charlie Hebdo. They didn’t know what it was. Now it’s the opposite, but if people are protesting to defend freedom of speech, naturally that’s a good thing …” Yes, it’s a good thing. But it’s only meaningful in a battle over Western values if we, the people, and our leaders do something more than protest and talk. In the hours after the Paris terrorist attacks, Newsweek featured this headline: “After Paris Attack, News Outlets Face Difficult Choice Over Controversial Magazine Covers.” Difficult? Really? How little we have learned. Publish the damn covers. As political academic, Jytte Klausen, ironically from Brandeis University, said last week, “The editors and cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo were targeted because, over the past five years, they have been left alone standing in defence of press freedom against the jihadist Kulturkampf.” When Australians who march under the chic ‘‘Je suis Charlie’’ slogan start demanding we repeal section 18C, then they can claim legitimate solidarity with Charlie. Until then, their actions are feel- good gimmickry. Charlie Hebdo deserves the last word. In 2012, Gerard Biard, the newspaper’s editor-in-chief explained his magazine’s decision to publish the Mohammed cartoons: “If we say to religion, ‘You’re untouchable’ we’re f. ked.” theaustralian.au/opinion/columnists/feel-good-friends-of-free-speech/story-e6frg7bo-1227183812325
Posted on: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 22:42:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015