Protests continued last week in parts of the Muslim world, particularly Pakistan (where at least 19 people were killed when the demonstrations turned violent), and Lebanon, against a little-known amateur low-budget internet film produced in the US, which ridiculed the Prophet Mohammed.
While such cartoons should not be banned, there were limits to provocation- Green MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit
The protests in a number of Muslim countries started about 10 days ago – during which the US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other American officials were killed in a rocket attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya – and have been targeted mainly at America.
However, the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in the French weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo last week further stirred up anti-Western sentiment and increased tensions all round. As a result of the publications of the cartoons the French government – fearing a backlash – closed its embassies and schools in a number of Muslim countries.
There is no doubt in my mind that the production of the low budget film in the US as well as the publication of the cartoons in a French magazine served no purpose at all and were irresponsible acts. Both the US and French governments have distanced themselves from the film and cartoons, and the US has even paid for adverts on Pakistani TV that show President Barack Obama condemning the film.
Amid the protests in various Muslim countries the debate has once again surfaced about freedom of expression, responsibility and respect for various religious beliefs. Freedom of speech is a pillar of democracy and a defining characteristic of all nations that value and believe in liberty. It is a safeguard against oppression and dictatorial tendencies, but it obviously has to be exercised with a sense of responsibility, common sense and within a country’s legal framework.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit, co-chairman of the Greens in the European Parliament, referred to Charlie Hebdo as “idiots” in an interview with the French TV news channel BFMTV and perhaps summed up how many people in the West view the situation when he said: “While such cartoons should not be banned, there were limits to provocation”. He added: “They (the magazine) are masochists, they must enjoy it.”
Elmar Brok, a German MEP and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee called the low-budget film “repulsive” and said freedom of opinion ends at the point where people intend to provoke hatred between nations and religions under the cover of this principle.
Brok added: “At the same time I cannot accept the violence that we have witnessed. Violence and bloodshed are never acceptable. Europe is proud about the freedom of speech, the freedom of opinion and the freedom of religion, which we have anchored in the constitutions of our countries, the Treaty of Lisbon and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
“But not everything that is allowed should be done. We all also know it will not be possible to completely stop such nasty material from being made public in the age of the internet.”
The Muslim rage at the US film and French cartoons is understandable, but no acts of violence or incitement to violence are justified in these circumstances.
Furthermore, the US and French governments can in no way be held responsible for this state of affairs. The question that needs to be addressed is: Has the line been crossed in the name of freedom of expression? In both Europe and the US, inciting hatred, whether on religious or racial grounds, is a crime. It is therefore up to the courts to decide whether the law has been broken.
In fact a French Muslim group, the Union of Islamic Organisations of France, is to sue the Charlie Hebdo magazine over the publication of cartoons, on the grounds that it incited religious hatred. It is important to stress that French Muslims, while condemning both the film and cartoons, reacted cautiously and appealed for calm throughout this whole episode.
Mohammed Moussaoui, leader of the French Muslim Council, described both the film and the cartoons as “acts of aggression” but appealed to French Muslims not to take to the streets for wildcat protests.
Dalil Boubakeur from the Grand Mosque of Paris also called for “calm and vigilance”, and urged Muslims to “take the higher ground with regards to this despicable infamy.”
The crucial aspect here is the supremacy of the rule of law; if it is believed a crime has been committed, then there are legal remedies which can be turned to and the courts will ultimately decide on this. This must be understood by all governments in Muslim countries, especially those which were put into power as a result of the Arab Spring, both Islamist and non-Islamist.
The rule of law is a fundamental characteristic of democracies, and those Arab Spring countries which have witnessed anti-Western demonstrations, such as Egypt and Tunisia (not Libya – the assault on the US consulate was a planned terrorist attack), must get to grip with this fact as they embark on the road to democracy.
They should not encourage such protests, which, after all, have been hijacked by Islamic extremists and Salafists who have absolutely no interest in democracy.