Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech and Fraternity

Charlie Hebdo, the magazine, belongs to a tradition unique to France. I am no authority on French history, but I know that before the French Revolution in 1789, there were numerous magazines and pamphlets circulating in Paris, making what can only be described as scurrilous and pornographic attacks on the Monarchy and the Church. Some historians regard these publications as one of the main contributory causes of the revolution, and their influence could be discerned after the downfall of the Ancien Regime, in Jean-Paul Marat's newspaper, "L'Ami Du Peuple" and the accusations of incest made against Marie-Antoinette at her trial. Charlie Hebdo clearly follows in this anti-establishment, anti-clerical tradition, and is intent on continuing this irreverent and offensive practice, despite last week's horrific massacre.
I mention all this because this exclusively French angle on the free speech debate that now rages has been overlooked. It is very difficult to make an original contribution to this debate, but, if a solution to this whole issue of free speech, satire and religion is to be found, I think it is to be found in France, in the best tradition of the Revolution of 1789.
But that is to come. To begin with, Muslims in Europe (i.e. Western Europe) clearly are unhappy at their Prophet being represented in cartoon form. In fact, they do not like any representation of him at all; it is forbidden. Most Muslims in Europe were appalled by the Charlie Hebdo Massacre. However, there seems to be a feeling among Muslims that they are being unfairly treated when it comes to their religion being ridiculed. As Mehdi Hasan says in "The Huffington Post":
"Muslims, I guess, are expected to have thicker skins than their Christian and Jewish brethren...You ask us to laugh at a cartoon of the Prophet while ignoring the vilification of Islam across the continent...and the widespread discrimination against Muslims in education, employment and public life..."
Even the post-massacre edition of Charlie Hebdo, which actually makes a sympathetic representation of the Prophet, is resented by many Muslims.
The wave of horror caused by the massacre(s), as we know, led to a great march of indignation in France, supported by millions of ordinary French people and a number of world leaders. Mark Steel, the ex-SWP comedian and author of a book on the French Revolution, following the Charlie Hebdo example, turned this occasion into a grim opportunity for satire in his article for the Independent, pointing out that many of the world leaders attending the event had an inglorious record on free speech and human rights:

"To start with, we should congratulate the Prime Minister of Israel and ambassador for Saudi Arabia, for honouring satire in its time of need, by turning up to a march for free speech and against violence and murder.

Across Gaza, people must have sat in the rubble that used to be their living room or local hospital and said: “Fair play to Netanyahu, at least he knows how to have  a laugh.”
And Raif Badawi will appreciate the Saudi government’s presence on a day for free speech, because he’s been sentenced to one thousand lashes by the Saudi government for setting up a liberal website. They must be lashing him for not being critical enough I suppose."

Quite. And the Pope himself has joined the debate, saying, among other things:

 “If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s normal. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

With all due respect to His Holiness, he has a point, but, as Polly Toynbee says in today's Guardian:

"No, it’s not normal to punch someone who insults you; the pope’s Christ certainly didn’t think so. Verbal provocation is never an excuse for violence – that’s the wife-beater’s defence.
Is he saying we must respect any old cult: followers of Black Sabbath, Odin, Scientology, astrology? Or is it the size of a faith that earns it the right to gag mockery?
Whenever the faiths come together to protect their rights jointly, you should smell a rat."

So much has been said, and much more will be said on this issue; all I can do is express my own opinions, for what they are worth. But that's the value of free speech.
First, I try never to gratuitously offend any religious believers on this blog. I have made many criticisms of Islamic regimes around the world for their treatment of religious (and irreligious) minorities, but I would never attack or ridicule any religion per se, as I have valued friends in a number of different faiths, and would never offend them. I do, however, feel the need to point out that while Muslims in Europe suffer angst over cartoons of their prophet, religious minorities in most Muslim states face discrimination, violence and death on a daily basis. Neither Mehdi Hasan, Mark Steel or the Pope (surprisingly), given all the talk about "double standards", mentions this. Nor, suspiciously, has there been much expression of sympathy from Muslim pundits for the Jewish victims of the massacres. If anything, British police are warning of possible attacks on the Jewish community in the UK. "By whom?", one wonders. I must also state that, though I would not seek to offend any religious believers, I support the right to free speech as it stands. Provided articles are not defamatory or inciting hate crime, there must be no change in the law. After all, why should Islam be given special legislative protection (i.e. banning of offensive cartoons) and not every other religion? And what legal chaos would that cause? Nor would the Muslim terrorists stop their activities if we give in on this issue. They would see it as a victory and concentrate their attacks on some other issue that incurs their disapproval - gay weddings, perhaps, or the sale of alcohol.
To conclude, I would like to return to the three core values of the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The Revolution has a very bad name in history. As Mark Steel has said, in "Vive La Revolution": "It seems to me that we're not supposed to like the French Revolution very much".
The negative images abound, from "A Tale of Two Cities" by Dickens, through "The Scarlet Pimpernel" by Baroness Orczy, to "Citizens" by Simon Schama. Our collective mind's eye sees tumbrils, the guillotine, the September Massacres and Marat in his bath. Nevertheless, not everything the revolutionaries did was evil. The First Republic was the first country in the world to abolish slavery (1794), and they inspired hope in the European youth, poets, musicians and artists of the day. Besides this, in August, 1789, they published the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen", which led to the emancipation of Jews and Protestants in France for the first time in French history. It also inspired the emergent labour organisations across Europe, and influenced the writing of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights at the end of World War Two. Hope for today, I think, lies in the last of the three core values - Fraternity. If it is possible for Muslims to protect Jews and lose their lives defending a satirical Paris magazine, then it is possible to reach out to fellow citizens of the Muslim faith. If Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus and Unbelievers can march together in Paris, then they can live together anywhere.