This is my reply to the Facebook comment thread linked to here:
Enjoy!
*
Thanks to all of you again for taking the time to engage, and the length of this post reflects the seriousness with which I regard this subject. First, a disclaimer:
I’ve never read an entire Charlie Hebdo issue in my life, or indeed heard of it
before this incident. I am largely unfamiliar with French culture and the
reality on the ground in France; I don’t know how widespread
racism is there, whether immigrants are truly accepted in society (and I think
this is a question for many European countries at the moment), etc… so this is
why comparing different viewpoints like this article, over the past several
days, has been very important for me.
One of the things that interested me most about this article
in particular was that it was mainly discussing not just Islam itself but also
the experiences of people of color in France (linking it to the author’s recent
trip to Paris to discuss just that with Parisians of color). It’s very
important to emphasize that for me, questioning this kind of content is not
about making a “special excuse” for Islam, or encouraging double standards.
Cartoons that peddle racist stereotypes about black people, Chinese people, and
Buddhist people, as Alexandre mentioned, would be just as unacceptable for me
as those that depict Islam and/or Muslims – and just as I would be vehemently
against the kind of anti-Semitic cartoons that are already stringently banned
under French law, as they should be. (A fact that calls into question double
standards of a different nature, as many commentaries have already pointed
out.)
First and most important: we can all agree that there is
such a thing as racist, offensive and xenophobic speech. The tricky part is
that, of course, everyone’s standards for what constitutes “offensive” are
different, both on an individual and a cultural level. For example, in the US,
these kinds of cartoons would NEVER be published (even newspapers that are
reprinting them in solidarity blur out some of the more controversial ones).
This has to do with the history and culture of the US, which has had to try and
move beyond a very fractious and still-dangerous “race problem”. This is also
the angle from which the author of this article, who apparently lives in the
US, views this subject by. As a dual citizen of Saudi Arabia and the US, I also
am definitely more on the side of the US in how I interpret speech as offensive
or not. So our standard of judging certain kinds of speech as unacceptable is
pretty low.
However, what would never be acceptable in the US would in
fact be acceptable in France; as I’ve learned through my research over the past
several days, France has a tradition of no-holds-barred satire that dates back
to the Revolution. As a result, the standards for offensive speech for the
average French person is much higher – which might result in someone French
considering what I think is a tasteless joke as pretty funny; so we can’t
automatically say “oh the French are racists!” just because they might
appreciate a different type of humor than we do. Also, thank you Alexandre for
explaining the cartoon, I see now that it can’t be fairly described as
“racist”. I’ve done some more research and apparently even the cartoon of the
woman as a monkey was also a comment on HER being described as a monkey by
racists. So yes, just calling something racist doesn’t automatically make it
so, and there are multiple ways to read different cartoons. What pushes
someone’s buttons might be absolutely fine for others. (An article that helped
me to digest this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/11/1356945/-On-not-understanding-Charlie-Why-many-smart-people-are-getting-it-wrong#)
If I understand you correctly, Ejmin,
your main point is that no one has the right not to be offended; freedom of
speech means allowing disrespectful and provocative language, attacking the
holiness that surrounds certain concepts; ‘thumbing it to the man’, so to
speak. While you are absolutely correct, I’d like to question the occasional intentions
behind such speech… I don’t think it can ever really be chalked up to “just for
fun”. You point out just a few comments later (lol) that “satiric expressions
reflect utterly the imagination of the society from the concepts that matter,
so they are good ways of evaluating what's going on in the main stream”. So
framing it as ‘just for fun’ isn’t doing it justice; there’s always
reverberations and repercussions that can’t be immediately detected in these
issues. (Also, I think the point of linking to the CNN report was just
to point out that this kind of talk is becoming more and more widespread).
When ‘humor’ is based on peddling
harmful and negative stereotypes, that’s when it starts being problematic – but
then again, it’s not about what I or anyone else finds tasteless, is it?
However, what I feel clinches the issue for me is not the question of
disrespecting certain minorities over others, but in that it’s a way for the
‘strong’ to clobber the ‘weak’. When ‘poking fun’ is actually ‘consistently
targeting a certain minority’. And while I’m not familiar with the legal
definition of “hate speech” (thank you, Saudi legal education, for not having a
class on freedom of expression :P) I don’t agree that the only standard to
judge hate speech should be “proving that people were motivated to conduct hate
crime” as a result. Hate speech should also be understood as maliciously
propagating stereotypes that take away from people’s dignity and can actually
result in a subliminal, unconscious erosion of their sense of respect by the
majority, and leads not only to condescension but also to denigration on a
wider scale. Which is arguably what’s happening here.
The fact that ‘Charlie Hebdo made fun of white people too’
doesn’t really resolve the issue at hand – as pointed out in this article (http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/why-i-am-not-charlie/),
“Saying the President of the
Republic is a randy satyr is not the same as accusing nameless Muslim
immigrants of bestiality. What merely annoys the one may deepen the other’s
systematic oppression. To defend satire because it’s indiscriminate is to admit
that it discriminates against the defenseless.”
Just a quick example – would a strong,
loud bully on a playground be allowed to mercilessly taunt a short quiet weak
kid, or would he be stopped? This is the main reason why I feel like there
should be limits; not because some people are more likely to get offended than
other, but because power dynamics in a society are real and because encouraging
widespread stereotypes about people can be very harmful. Not just because it
offends them personally, but because propagating these stereotypes is always
negative, and because, come on – much of this is not intelligent humor that’s
making a point in any way. Maintaining people’s rights to be provocative is one
thing, but also acknowledging that sometimes these provocations are based on
nothing more than childish and immature ways to express oneself, like an
annoying kid sticking their tongue out and going “nyah nyah nyah!”. As the New
York Times put it, ““We have a standard that is long held and that serves us
well: that there is a line between gratuitous insult and satire. Most of these
are gratuitous insult.”http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-cartoon-publication-debate/?_r=2
So: I guess the takeaway from all this
is that, while I am not going to presume to advocate for more stringent laws on
freedom of expression, nor am I going to try and condemn the French mode of
satire from the outside, I am against lionizing these cartoons and trying to
make them out to be some kind of heroic statement for freedom and liberty. Regarding
the way that some media outlets have reacted to the massacre, the
always-incredible and on-point Glenn Greenwald expresses just what I want to
say on the subject: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
I’m also reminded of this thoughtful comic on
the subject by an excellent cartoonist:
To be honest, my own attitude regarding these kinds of
cartoons is to ignore them. They’re not hurting me, and they’re certainly not
hurting the Prophet. I couldn’t care less what a bunch of people, who are
utterly ignorant about what Islam stands for, think about it. I highly doubt
that these cartoons can be blamed for persuading anyone who is not aware of the
subject that Islam or the Prophet advocate violence. Humor doesn’t operate in a
vacuum, and we need to allocate blame where it is due. I think the cartoons are
tasteless and I don’t agree with them, but realistically, especially in this
day and age, I think it’s going to become less and less likely that my
objection to them is going to lead to them being banned. In the end, the only
thing we Muslims can do is to fight against these stereotypes so that they make
no sense anymore. So that referring to the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist
would be considered an oxymoron that makes no sense, not something that would
make anyone chuckle in recognition. And that is what, largely, we have failed
to do. We do carry the burden of representing ourselves; a demonstration by
Muslims is the one thing I would’ve wanted to see as well. If I lived in a
place where I could organize one myself, believe me, I would. As it is, I hope
and pray that my actions and words in condemning these heinous crimes can be
enough.
In the end, what did those terrorists accomplish? Their
disgusting attempt at “defense” of the Prophet, if it really was “defense”,
just led to the propagation of more of these ludicrous cartoons around the
world. To stepping up the attempts at blasphemy, to enforcing the terrible
stereotype of Muslims as terrorists, to increased actual hate crime against
Muslims who are identified with these awful crimes, and on and on… Here in
Saudi Arabia people are actually calling into question that Muslims did this
(though I don’t like engaging in conspiracy theories), since they couldn’t have
harmed Islam more systematically if they tried!!! That’s why, in conclusion,
this cartoon by Carlos Latuff, which I have linked to before, is so apt: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera/photos/pcb.10153092512528690/10153092508728690/?type=1&theater
Peace be with us all.