Publish and Be Damned

Publish and be damned; it’s something I will always believe in. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right, and one which is at risk of being supressed through self-censorship in light of heightening discourses around race and religion. The Charlie Hebdo killings were a tragedy of the greatest kind. They demonstrated the fragile nature of our human rights which are continually threatened and which the cartoonists and writers at Charlie Hebdo risked much to defend. Or so I thought.

Unfortunately, life is much more nuanced than that. It’s all well and good to advocate for freedom of expression, but it’s also necessary to take into account the wider context in which this promotion takes place, something which I had failed to do in relation to the Charlie Hebdo attack. Much like the rest of the world, in light of their death, I saw the murdered cartoonists and writers of Charlie Hebdo as advocates for freedom of expression. Creative minds who were trying to help in some way to reverse the tide of radicalisation and extremism which is currently sweeping much of Europe.

However, although I have no doubt that Charb and his colleagues were good people with good intentions, I have come question whether they realised the political weight their images and storyboards carried. Of course they knew that what they were creating was politically loaded, it wouldn’t be worth publishing if it wasn’t, but were they aware of the policies they were both promoting and legitimising? It was something I certainly hadn’t considered, that is, not until I read comments published in Nouvel Obs and written by Henri Roussel (or Delfeil de ton as he writes under), a co-founder of Charlie Hebdo.

Roussel is known for his disapproval of much of the content published in Charlie Hebdo over recent years. He has accused its former editor, Philippe Val, of using the magazine as a Zionist and Islamophobic tool and questioned Charb’s motives on two previous occasions, after the magazine had published provocative cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. This article was much in the same vein, deploring, even in light of his death, Charb’s continuation of this provocation despite an arson attack and numerous other threats.

Why was Roussel so against Charb’s cartoons? Surely freedom of expression is worth fighting for and promoting when it is being threatened by a wave of extremist radicalisation? Well, yes, of course it’s worth fighting for. But is that really what they were doing? I’m not so sure. Of course, I can’t attest to the cartoonists’ and writers’ motives, but Roussel highlighted an important point: the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo were part of a proxy war which France, and many other Western countries, have declared on the Islamic world.

This dichotomous relationship was demonstrated after the killings when there was very much a feeling of either/or: you either supported Charlie Hebdo and Western freedom of expression, or you supported the terrorists and their rhetoric which is, of course, insupportable. Roussel wrote,

I don’t much like it when a head of state speaks of the dead as heroes. It usually happens because citizens have been sent to war and not come back, which is rather the case with the victims of the attack on Charlie Hebdo. The attack is part of a war declared on France, but can also be seen in the light of the wars France has got itself involved in: conflicts where its participation isn’t called for, where worse massacres than that at Charlie Hebdo take place every day, several times a day, where our bombardments pile death on death in the hope of saving potentates who feel threatened and are no better than those who threaten them…

Indeed, we seem to have trapped ourselves in a vicious cycle whereby, because we feel threatened we threaten in retaliation. Foreign policy isn’t restricted to the confines of the front lines or the intelligence agencies, it seeps into all of society. This could not be more evident than in the case of Charlie Hebdo. By declaring a proxy war against various Islamic states and perpetuating a discourse of menace from the Islamic world, the French government, among others, have legitimised threatening behaviours which I believe, in more peaceful times, would be considered abhorrent and certainly would not be praised.

Roussel questioned how an image depicting ‘a naked Muhammed praying, seen from behind, balls dangling and prick dripping, in black and white but with a yellow star on his anus’ was funny. The short answer is, it wasn’t. The explanation is that Charlie Hebdo, like many other areas of society and culture, has been caught in a vicious cycle whereby it feels the need to threaten the menace of Islam in a retaliatory manner. Of course, none of this means that they shouldn’t have published what they did. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right; we will continue to publish and be damned.


Free Speech Cardiff

Calling all politically and socially engaged citizens in Cardiff, a friend is creating a social media community around free public speeches, talks and meet-ups in the city. Keep up with her blog to find out about dates for events and for event feedback, she’ll also be looking for guest contributors.

FGM – The Price We Pay for Religious Tolerance?

Female Genital Mutilation is an issue which has come to the forefront in Britain over the past few years; and so it should. When I myself started to research FGM I was shocked to find out how ineffective our laws are in the U.K; in comparison to the efforts made in France to counter FGM, Britain falls far short. Repressive measures, like the ones carried out in France, are by no means a simple solution; however, in this case, are they the right one?

In 1985 the U.K introduced the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act, and since it has witnessed a total of two prosecutions. It is true that in the past the law was limited and difficult to impose: there was little publicity of the crime, certainly no education, and very few mechanisms as a means to report it. It is also true that the law has since been reinforced to include U.K nationals committing the crime outside of U.K borders, and that we’ve seen a steady increase in anti-FGM campaigns and education.

How can it be then that despite the progress we’ve made we’ve still only just experienced our first prosecutions, almost 15 years after FGM was made illegal? It’s not as though prosecutions aren’t happening elsewhere; in fact, France, a country which made FGM illegal in 1983 under a section of its penal code, has witnessed around 100 prosecutions. This difference is startling, and it essentially comes down to differing attitudes towards multiculturalism.

There is no denying that France is a multicultural country. However, when this multiculturalism comes into contact with the state’s policy on secularity, tension is created. Indeed, France’s tough policy on secularity takes the separation of church and state to a whole new level. Essentially, wherever you find government money being spent in France, you will not find religious expression.

The most controversial piece of secular legislation was passed in 2011, which bans females from covering their face for religious reasons in public places. This law, along with many others in France, has come under fire for supressing freedom of expression and legitimising Islamophobia. However, when France’s legislation on secularity also includes the recording of FGM, or absence of FGM, in mothers and children, as well as a ban on religious symbols in schools, I can’t help but find myself supporting it.

Although awareness is increasing in the U.K, we still lack a mechanism for recording and reporting FGM. There are countless reports of pregnant women who have suffered FGM in their past, passing through the NHS without being asked any questions. This isn’t a failure by the NHS, it’s simply part of a culture of religious tolerance. There’s no doubt that religious tolerance is something a people and a country should be proud of practising. But if there is a limit to this tolerance, which surely there always is, it must be at the point where human rights are breached.

Why Peter Hitchens was wrong about New Liberal Bigotry

For me, being forced to rethink your own ideas about the world which surrounds us is essential not only to self-development, but also to societal progression. Without the continual clash of opinions, ideals and convictions, which we are experiencing more and more as the world of social media takes on more influence, society would stagnate. Which is why I was excited when a friend introduced me to the concept of ‘new Liberal bigotry’, thus forcing me to rethink my often too liberal ideals and morality.

This friend, having read through some of my blog, suggested that I watch an old episode of Question Time, in which Peter Hitchens speculates on the threat of a rising ‘new Liberal bigotry’. Now, I’m not a huge fan of Peter Hitchens, I feel like he makes too many sweeping statements and applies broad definitions and ends up with, well, not that much. However, in this particular panel show, he made a valid point, even if I don’t wholly accept it (12:35 onwards).

Hitchens claims that liberalism has reached a point where it is now forcing upon society and its individuals an ideology of diversity and equality, and that this ideology has in turn become accepted as a moral absolute. Now, I accept his point to a certain extent: society has indeed gradually become more and more liberal and an ideology of diversity and equality has indeed become the norm. However, unlike Hitchens, I do not equate an increase in liberalism with a decrease in conservatism (or an increase in the persecution of conservatives).

On the contrary, as is evident from the change that has taken place in the political sphere since 2012, the gradual rise of liberal morals has finally resulted in the resurgence of a more conservative morality. Even Hitchens himself has been commentating on the exasperation which has swept the nation, that is, exasperation with the failure of liberal government after liberal government to instigate real change. Liberalism has finally come up against some opposition and is perhaps now being forced to rethink itself.

So Hitchens was wrong. The supposed ‘new Liberal bigotry’ has not resulted in the persecution of conservatives, and I don’t think it ever will. I will concede that liberal ideals have come to be preached too often as moral absolutes, a practice which completely contradicts the concept of liberalism itself. However, the result of such ‘bigotry’ hasn’t been negative, it has in fact been positive. This persistent ideology of equality and diversity has provoked the very opposition which is now placing it under scrutiny.

Indeed, recognising the value in how someone else perceives the world allows for the opportunity to reach a compromise. Sure, a lot of the time, if not most of the time, we don’t reach that compromise before the opportunity has passed us by; and even if we do, the ever-changing face of our society means it can only ever be fleeting. But I feel, right now, society is feeling its way towards a compromise, so that hopefully in the future, for however brief a period, liberals like myself, who are too often prone to preaching moral absolutes (see my last blog post…), will bear in mind their conservative counterparts before they put finger to keyboard or pen to paper.

Spotted – Insidious Societal Discrimination

As a space in which all the differences, variations and interactions within our world can make themselves evident, social media can only play a positive role in society. The virtual world can provide a freedom which is too often denied to many millions of people in the real world. Social media is the ultimate champion of freedom of expression and is the hallmark of generation Y.

Or is it?

A recent and heated debate between the Feminist society and the library Spotted page at my university, provoked me to question the limitations of the value of freedom of expression in our shared virtual world. Has freedom of expression become harmful to societal progression, and if so how?

Spotted is an intriguing phenomenon which acts as a kind of snapshot of the role social media is currently playing in our society. It can demonstrate the positive aspects of virtual interaction: the communication of useful information, the exchange of friendly compliments, and even the sparking of romances. However, it also demonstrates how generation Y are as much the perpetrators of gender, racial, and social discrimination as generation A were.

I would argue that discrimination has barely been touched upon as an issue in our society; it has, in fact, simply changed location. I’m not saying things haven’t changed for the better in the real world, which is perhaps what matters. What I’m saying is that the virtual world provides the perfect forum to fuel the prejudicial opinions, which are the foundation of discriminatory actions in our societies.

Just because discrimination has become more nuanced and less noticeable on the street, in the workplace, and at home, doesn’t mean it’s not there. The internet has provided a space for the outspoken, yet often anonymous, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and all the other forms of discrimination which were rife on the streets in decades past. This change in location has not resulted in a decrease in discrimination in the real world, it has simply allowed it to become much more insidious.

But what I find most worrying about online freedom of expression, is the backlash towards those who are attempting to counter its harmful effects. I believe in freedom of expression and am incredibly grateful that I live in a country which respects this right. I therefore resent being told that I am squashing such freedoms, when I red flag a post or comment for its blatant demonstration of prejudice and discrimination. Too many people are being taken in by the necessity of freedom of expression in our virtual world as justification for discrimination.

I believe in freedom of expression. You’re free to be a virtual and/or real perpetrator of discrimination of you want to be. But next time don’t red flag me just for calling you out. I am as free as you are to argue that my opinions are right, which they are, because discrimination is always wrong.