Charlie Hebdo and Freedom of Speech: the Other Side of the Coin

     

  

   We spoke about how wrong it is to do evil in the name of religion, and I will never stop condemning what happened in Paris during the past few days. In spite of being very saddened by the tragedy which occurred at the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, there are always two sides of the story. Therefore, today I will tackle another issue, which is quite tricky in this case: freedom of speech. 

      

         Yes, the media should be free to express its views in an uncensored manner. But what about satirical media (which is actually what Charlie Hebdo is)? Charlie Hebdo has had a long-term reputation for being a controversial and irreverent publication. It has not been denigrating Islam in particular, given the fact that they did the same with the symbols of Christanity. Most probably, a very religious Christian would find them offensive, whereas someone who is not religious would just have a laugh. Charlie Hebdo was not xenophobic, given the fact that once upon a time they also pointed their satirical arrows towards Charles De Gaulle, a nation's hero and one of the most prominent figures of the history of France, shortly after his death. So, Charlie was like that nasty kid who has fun by being mean - but, just like in life, with this sort of people you should not take them seriously, but you don't go killing them either.

          The staff of Charlie Hebdo were brave: they ignored past threats from enemies and warnings from authorities, and continued with their merry ways. However, can we REALLY talk about defending freedom of speech? Or rather, defending the traditional "naughty" identity of Charlie Hebdo as a publication? I don't know about you, but I'd be more inclined towards talking about freedom of speech if it were the case of a "serious" publication serving public interest, or really tackling crucial issues for society in a mature manner. 

            I said it before and I will say it again: nothing justifies murder, nothing justifies killing in the name of God, or Allah, or Buddha, or whoever we believe in. Satirical humour has the purpose to make people laugh, although sometimes it can be "too much" or just plain unfair. Should they stop in the future? Probably not, and I have the feeling that they WILL not. Because they are brave. I just hope that nothing like this terrorists attack will happen again. Yet, the fact that the cartoonists "died to defend freedom of speech" is a highly debatable theory. What do you think? Is it about freedom of speech or freedom of humour? I would go for the second option. 

Charlie Hebdo: when Tragedy Meets Humour to Create Solidarity

       

    My night was far from happy and peaceful, after what happened yesterday in Paris. The Charlie Hebdo attacks are far from justifiable, and, no matter how offended someone must have been from their drawings, that is not a reason to pull out the rifles and kill people. Period. Just imagine: if everyone did that, for every single remark, text or media product that is not politically correct, we'd probably be all dead. 

               

              However, apart from the debates related to religious issues and freedom of speech, which were to be expected anyway, what I was impressed by was the worldwide solidarity shown by the media, and mostly through humour, just like the Charlie Hebdo team deserved. These symbols spread accross publications from France and from many other countries and on social media. The "Je suis Charlie" slogan, in several languages, has been spoken and posted by all of us. Even news anchors have been using it this morning, right after introducing themselves, at the beginning of the news programme. 

                

             Most of these drawings, created by various international cartoonists and from which I selected my own favourites, use humour as a weapon to soften the tragedy: making analogies between drawing tools and weapons of mass destructions, depicting the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in heaven, or simply expressing encouragement for the remaining staff of the magazine to rise again and keep fighting for their values. 

                    

              Charlie Hebdo is a magazine with a long, and certainly not boring history. It started off from the 1960s magazine Hara-Kiri, and it has always been famous for its irreverent humour. Bannings and warnings of being banned have periodically marked its history, since the times of Charles De Gaulle. And some of the victims of the attack, some of the most famous French cartoonists, were actually members of its original team, since the early days. Even I was familiar with the naughty 1970s work of Wolinski. ;) And if I was saddenned by their loss - I can imagine the French people, who were far more familiar with their work and their humour. 

           Personally, from now on I will also commit to follow more closely the progress that is made in relation with the media and freedom of speech, but also what will happen with the future of Charlie Hebdo. I wish them to rise back stronger than before, and, as much as possible... try to stay safe. 

          Aujourd'hui nous sommes tous Charlie! 

In Theory, Religion Counts as Culture. Then, why Kill in the Name of It?

     

   Unfortunately, the year 2015 on Culture Coffee Break will start with a controversial matter, and an event we wish never had happened. Today, the whole world has been shocked by the terrorist attack on the headquarters of the Charlie Hebdo weekly satire magazine in Paris. Twelve people, mainly staff members of the magazine, including famous caricaturists,  have been shot dead by Islamic extremists. Charlie Hebdo was famous for its controversial satires, and it was not the first time the materials it published created controversies, or received threats by extremists. This time, unfortunately, the threats became reality. 

     During my university studies of intercultural communication, an emphasis has often been placed on the inter-religious aspect as well. In other words, religion counts as culture, apparently. It counts, or should count, as tradition and ritual. It is the set of habits of each nation, ethnic group, and even individual, used to praise the divine force. The religions of the world are diverse, and with their own separate history and geographic location. However, just like nations, religions inevitably interact as well. At the end of the day, adhering to a particular religion and its practices, or even choosing to believe in a supreme spiritual power at all, should be a personal choice of each one of us, and acceptance and tollerance should be practiced. In an ideal world, that is. If you think in a different way, please don't shoot! ;)

       I never understood any extremist or even radical behaviour in the name of religion, whichever that religion may be. In theory, no religion in the world promotes violence, and all religions preach peace and love. I don't even agree with trying to convince or impose upon another individual your own beliefs. Like that excessively-religious relative who gets scandalized because you're not a church-goer. 

        However, what about the freedom of speech? Yes, it is one of the main values of the modern western world, but obviously not everyone seems to think this way. Do you think that the media should avoid tackling sensitive topics, especially on a humorous or sarcastic note? Everything is like a vicious circle, and if things continue this way, the future will keep seeing people and groups provoking each other, and violence continuing. Nothing justifies killing in the name of religion, and these people must be condemned, but neither was it worth for the journalists and humourists to risk their lives over it. Do you think there is a way to prevent these tragedies from happening again? What will be the future of Charlie Hebdo?

        This day will not, and must not be easily forgotten. My thoughts are with the victims of the Charlie Hebdo attack and their families, in the hope of peaceful co-existence between nations and religions.