A few weeks ago we were all Charlies. Many western politicians, academics and people in general, including some in our tiny periphery, were wearing their love of free speech on their sleeves.

When it later emerged that the journal in question did not limit itself to caricatures of Muhammad but included drawings of Jesus involved in certain acts, the Pope and Catholic saints, some locals started having second thoughts.

As for me, while I find certain caricatures to be disgusting, I’m not sure whether there should be legal limits on satire. Satire is different from journalism and reporting.

If legal limits are to be drawn, then there will be obvious difficulties as to where the limits are to be placed; whose sensibility or what type of sensibility should be respected and what may be made fun of.

If I have to err, I prefer to err on the side of liberty. I would rather educate the tastes of readers than censure the bad tastes of drawers. If no one buys Charlie Hebdo, it will die a natural death.

What I definitely oppose, however, are double standards and these do not merely concern the fact that no one mourns victims in the Third World, as many have rightly highlighted.

European leaders demonstrated for the freedom to draw caricatures of Mohammad or Jesus. Yet, in certain European countries one runs the risk of ending up in jail if one draws an equally-distasteful caricature about the holocaust.

The epitome of hypocrisy however, occurred when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia died.

This monarch presided over a regime that denies the most basic freedoms to its subjects, uses amputations, flogging and public beheadings as punishments and denies women the right to leave their houses unless accompanied by male relatives. He was also instrumental in crushing the Arab spring in Bahrain.

If I have to err, I prefer to err on the side of liberty

Not only did Abdullah not allow caricatures of Mohammad in the country he ruled but no denomination other than Islam is allowed in Saudi Arabia. Recently, he even branded atheism as a form of terrorism.

Regarding Islam itself, the Saudi regime has attempted to sabotage Islam at home and abroad by savagely repressing any interpretation or practice that strays away from the approved version at home and by financing mosques abroad (including many in Europe) that promote a similar variant with the proviso that, outside Dar al-Islam, these aims are to be achieved in a pacific way. Eliminate the proviso and deduce what follows.

Important targets of the persecution at home, apart from, among others, Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Ahmaddis, Shiites and even Sunnis who do not uphold the official creed, are the Sufis, peaceful Muslim mystics who honour people like master Rumi who come out with beautiful lines like “Christian, Jew, Muslim, shaman, Zoroastrian, stone, ground, mountain, river, each has a secret way of being with the mystery, unique and not to be judged”.

But persecution is not limited only to religious matters. Raif Badawi has been condemned to jail and to be beaten on a weekly basis for advocating mild liberal reforms. And he was lucky to have his case highlighted in the western media. Many others, particularly immigrants from Third World countries, are not so lucky. In their case moreover, their rights are not infringed for political reasons but for much less.

Abdullah’s regime’s record for brutality makes Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad look like boy scouts.

Yet, western leaders fell over themselves to express their grief and praise the dead monarch.

Barack Obama, who had exclaimed that “the shadow of tyranny has been lifted” when Gaddafi was assassinated, praised Abdullah and “appreciated [his] genuine and warm friendship”.

Similarly, David Cameron, who had warned that “we should remember the many, many Libyans who died at the hands of this brutal dictator and his regime” when the former Libyan leader was killed, praised Abdullah’s “commitment to peace and [to] strengthening understanding between faiths”.

US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel called him “a powerful voice for toleration, moderation and peace in the Islamic world and across the globe” while German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke about policies that brought him and his kingdom “respect and recognition”.

The cherry on the cake was the House of Commons, the cradle of modern democracy and parliamentary rule, flying the British flag half-mast.

And there are some on our island who gullibly believe that a formal alliance with western leaders who honour the person who promotes an ideology they officially oppose will guarantee our security! How foolish it would be if we dump neutrality to join this lot.

Regarding our little periphery, not to be outdone, Malta’s Parliament followed the trail of western hypocrisy.

Speaker Anġlu Farrugia expressed condolences on behalf of the House. Not one out of the 65 parliamentarians had the gall to protest or to issue a disclaimer distancing him/herself from the message issued on his/her behalf.

Evidently, no one is any longer a Charlie or, more pertinently, a Raif Badawi.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.