By Sanjay Perera, Published The Straits Times, 15 Jan 2015
THE brutal deaths of 17 people in Paris, once regarded as the city of dreams and the cultural capital of the world, are having a devastating effect on France.
The killings of staff at satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and people at a Jewish supermarket are seen as acts of terror and an assault on freedom of speech. But they can also be viewed as manifestations of a broader narrative of traditional tensions from the Middle East, imported via immigration into Paris.
The Paris murders also segue into the worldview of the much touted clash between Western values that extol freedom of speech and non-Western ones that apparently countermand this.
But France is not the bastion of free speech that some may think it is. There is a law against Holocaust denial. France is in the process of trying to pass a new law, making it an offence to deny that an Armenian genocide occurred in the last century.
Its far-right French politician Jean-Marie Le Pen has been convicted several times for making statements seen as inciting hatred towards minorities, including Muslims.
However, Muslims in France may be forgiven for asking why anti-hate speech laws did not seem to protect them from extreme satire.
At the same time, France also has a tradition of republicanism and secularism which braces itself against any attempt to censor freedom of expression, no matter how obnoxious. Hence, the recent march of over a million people in solidarity with the victims of the shooting spree, and in defence of the right to publish controversial, offensive material.
Which brings us to Singapore.
We too have to come to terms with what may be a potential clash between secular values in an increasingly contested public space denoting freedom of speech, and religious or other social sensitivities.
We too have to come to terms with what may be a potential clash between secular values in an increasingly contested public space denoting freedom of speech, and religious or other social sensitivities.
There are already examples online of such clashes, when an individual post or blog offends those of another race or religion, or nationality.
We should not be lulled into thinking that such disregard for others' sensitivities are shown only by a minority, online, and are therefore not a problem. Online posts have real-life impact. Such "speech" is not immune to prosecution. Some have faced defamation suits as a result of what they have posted online; others have had their employment terminated due to violating workplace rules.
Unfortunately, we in Singapore have yet to begin the difficult conversation of figuring out how to strike compromises, or how to agree to disagree.
For example, it is becoming more evident that Singaporeans increasingly want greater freedom. But how much of this freedom is negotiable and how much of it is what must be insisted upon, no matter what?
To be sure, the Charlie Hebdo periodical would not have been allowed to publish the kind of satire it did in Singapore: the Media Development Authority (MDA) would have stepped in to curtail its licence. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Sedition Act would likely have been thrown at the publisher, editor and cartoonists.
That kind of restriction might be an appropriate response to the kind of provocation Charlie Hebdo spewed out. But is that where the line should always be drawn? Could gentle satire - even of race and religion - become acceptable?
Can we develop a tradition of encouraging dissent or allowing artistic freedom that might make us a little bit more thick-skinned and a little bit more tolerant of our own foibles?
So long as hyper-sensitivities abound in areas of race, language, religion, political affiliation, nationality and even sexual orientation, we remain susceptible to state intervention when things get rough. That has worked well in Singapore, but may not always be desirable to those who want a burgeoning of democratic practices.
Can Singaporeans learn to distinguish between what is wilfully destructive hate speech online and what is merely thoughtless venting, and respond appropriately?
What we need is to build a societal consensus on how to engage with critics civilly, and how to respond to critical views without attacking the critical person.
We don't need a Charlie Hebdo kind of satirical publication. But we could learn from the French in the way they respond to critical views with sangfroid.
As a society, Singapore can do with more freedom of expression - but not the kind that leads to violence and heartbreak.
The writer worked in the Singapore navy and media, taught at tertiary institutions and is the editor of Philosophers For Change, an online journal dealing with alternative socio-economic paradigms.
Wanted: Libel laws to keep communal peace
By Jamil Maidan Flores, Published The Straits Times, 15 Jan 2015
By Jamil Maidan Flores, Published The Straits Times, 15 Jan 2015
IN THE wake of the terrorist assault last week on the offices of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, in which 12 persons were killed, many people all over the world were moved to say, in an outpouring of anger at the perpetrators and sympathy for the victims, "I am Charlie".
Apart from two police officers, who were slain as they responded to the attack, the victims were cartoonists and editors marked for death by Muslim extremists because of their libellous depiction of the Prophet of Islam in past issues of the magazine.
Before the week was over, the youngest of the terror suspects had turned himself in to the police. Three terrorists had been killed in two simultaneous shootouts with the police, after they had gunned down a policewoman and at least four more civilians.
What can you make of all that gore? Speaking right after the Charlie Hebdo attack, US President Barack Obama called it "an attack on journalists.. (and) underscores the degree to which these terrorists fear freedom - of speech and of the press. But… a universal belief in the freedom of expression is something that can't be silenced because of the senseless violence of the few." French President Francois Hollande also described the Charlie Hebdo killings as "an attack on freedom".
Vienna-based Dr Anis Bajrektarevic, professor in international law and global politics, saw the attack as a demonstration of Islamofascism. "That these individuals are allegedly of Arab-Muslim origin does not make them less fascist, less European, nor does it (absolve) Europe… of responsibility." He lamented that Europe had not listened to voices calling for moderation and dialogue.
A group of French imams, joined by the Vatican Council for Interreligious Dialogue, condemned the attack and called for "responsible media to provide information that is respectful of religions, their followers and their practices, thus fostering a culture of encounter". They also expressed compassion for the victims and their families.
That's the way to go. Like the imams and the cardinals, I condemn the slaughter of civilians and peace officers and feel compassion for victims and their families. But I can't say, "I am Charlie Hebdo". That would be a travesty of the work of Mr Steven Sotloff and Mr James Foley, who were beheaded last year by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Mr Sotloff, Mr Foley and the many journalists all over the world who lost their lives speaking truth to power - those are the real heroes of freedom of expression.
Can't Charlie Hebdo be justified as satire? I know what satire is. It's the socially valuable art of exposing the pompous to ridicule. My own favourite object of satire is Kim Jong Un, the North Korean strongman. But I'll never portray him in pornographic terms. That would garble the social message.
Charlie Hebdo depicting Catholic nuns masturbating, the Pope wearing a condom and the Prophet of Islam in unspeakable poses isn't satire. It's malicious libel that should be legally actionable in any democratic society.
I'm not for censorship. I'm against prior restraints. A magazine should be free to publish anything it wishes. But once it publishes malicious libel, there should be laws that would teach it to respect the rights and sensibilities of others. Without wise laws on libel, we play into the hands of terrorists. There's nothing they love more than the kind of grievance that magazines like Charlie Hebdo generously provides them. It gives them an excuse to wreak violence on those they hate.
The violence triggers a backlash: the state and the majority population crack down on the Muslim community - multiplying the grievance a thousand times and deepening the sense of alienation among Muslims. That, in turn, swells the ranks of new recruits for ISIS. Without wise laws on libel, that's how the cookie of communal peace crumbles.
The writer is based in Jakarta and works as a speech writer for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This article first appeared in https://jamilmaidanflores.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/the-paris-killings-who-are-the-real-heroes-of-press-freedom/
The writer is based in Jakarta and works as a speech writer for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This article first appeared in https://jamilmaidanflores.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/the-paris-killings-who-are-the-real-heroes-of-press-freedom/