When Maltese journalists gathered in silence to show solidarity with their slain French colleagues, all felt the right, which underpinned their job, had been challenged.

But the concern went further. The right to freedom of expression, described by the European Court of Human Rights as “one of the essential foundations” of a democratic society, had come under fire.

The attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has shocked Europe, opening a debate on whether this represents a clash of civilisations or a conflict of values. It also triggers the question whether freedom of expression is an absolute right.

Undoubtedly, over the years, some of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed offended Muslims in a big way. But the irreverent magazine also offended Christians with its vulgar caricatures of the Holy Trinity and the Pope.

Fr Joe Borg, a media analyst, argues the worst mistake that can be perpetrated after the Charlie Hebdo massacre is to frame it within the “clash-of-civilisations narrative”.

“Those who spin this kind of spiel would be helping the savages to reach their objective,” he argues in his column today.

It is a concern spelt out by academic Carmen Sammut, who told Times of Malta last week that “rushed scaremongering” could give a misleading perception that the West is at war with Islam. “Hatred threatens to erode the human rights legacy, which Europeans have been advocating for almost seven decades,” she said.

But some have come to question whether the human rights legacy has stretched too far, especially when touching on sensitive subjects such as religion.

Others like Fr Brendan Gatt have condemned the attack outright but refused to adopt the “I am Charlie” slogan that has come to characterise the defiant stand adopted by many across the world, including Maltese journalists. Writing in In-Nazzjon on Friday Fr Gatt disagreed with the vulgar depictions of God that appeared in the magazine, calling them “unacceptable”.

“Blasphemy remains blasphemy... It is for this reason alone, that I am not Charlie,” Fr Gatt wrote, insisting he also disagreed with those who argue the journalists were inviting trouble.

For former human rights judge Giovanni Bonello the Charlie Hebdo assault attacked the “very essence” of freedom of speech because it sought to punish journalists for exercising their professional functions.

“Freedom of speech is one of the most basic and indispensable freedoms since it is the freedom that enables you to proclaim and defend all the other freedoms,” he argues.

But freedom of expression is also the only right that carries with it duties and responsibilities, he adds.

It is the fine line between the use of a right and its abuse that has been cast under the spotlight by the Paris attack.

“Not everyone will agree where that line is to be drawn but the principle is, and should always be, that freedom of expression is the rule, and any limitation to it should only be the strictest exception, to be justified only on very serious and compelling grounds of public interest,” Dr Bonello says.

If religious satire is likely to cause disorder this might justify democratic measures of restraint. But it can never remotely justify washing the perceived offence in a bloodbath- Giovanni Bonello

The prevention of disorder in society may be a justification to limit freedom of expression through regulations and restrictions, he explains. “One could argue that anti-religious speech, highly provocative and offensive to minorities and which is likely to cause disorder, can be lawfully regulated and restricted. A limitation to freedom of expression might be justifiable to prevent this disorder.”

But Dr Bonello acknowledges this is a very sensitive balancing exercise between the individual’s right to free expression and the right of the community to avoid serious disorder. He posits the American doctrine that no limitation on freedom of speech should ever be considered justifiable unless that speech causes “a clear and present danger”.

“Of course, even if religious satire is likely to cause disorder this might justify democratic measures of restraint. But it can never even remotely justify washing the perceived offence in a bloodbath,” Dr Bonello argues.

He does not believe religion should expect special treatment and any manifestation of religion and anti-religion should be permissible so long as they do not cause clear and present danger. “This is the sane way of balancing the rights of the individual with the interests of the community,” he says.

But not everyone agrees the events in France are all about freedom of expression.

For historian Dominic Fenech the terrorist act is condemnable for the simple fact that three individuals decided to kill 12 people because they did not agree with them.

“This goes far beyond freedom of expression. It is an atrocious attack, rendered graver because it happened in a civilian context,” he says. However, he does put forward a reflection on the West’s perception of the values it champions, most notably freedom of expression.

Prof. Fenech does not believe the attack was motivated by a clash of values over what constitutes censorship and free speech.

There is in the West subtle and not so subtle pressure towards self-censorship, especially with the use of politically-correct language when dealing with minorities, he adds. “The culture of censorship and self-censorship are not limited to Muslims.”

The culture of censorship and self-censorship are not limited to Muslims- Dominic Fenech

He says there are not so admirable reasons for self-censorship in the West like being denied a promotion, being ostracised and ridiculed.

“Charlie Hebdo challenged this attitude but it cannot be denied that the West also has its holy cows, which can lead to repercussions, even if not barbaric ones as we witnessed in Paris,” Prof. Fenech says. However, he acknowledges there are different levels of intolerance with some being graver than others. “In no way is it ever justified to kill someone because his beliefs differ from yours.”

It is likely the debate will rage on in Europe as the ramifications of the Charlie Hebdo attack become clearer.

While many have taken to the streets in solidarity with the slain journalists, the 1976 ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the Handyside case will continue to ring loud.

The court had ruled freedom of expression was also applicable to information and ideas that “offend, shock or disturb” the State or any sector of the population.

“Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society,” the court had said. Charlie Hebdo’s dead would have certainly agreed.

Paris under siege

January 7

Two masked terrorists armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles enter the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in central Paris.

They storm into the morning meeting of journalists and ask for Charb, the editor and a cartoonist, by name before shooting him dead.

The shooting rampage kills eight journalists, a visitor, a maintenance worker and two police officers.

Killers are reportedly heard saying that the prophet Mohammed had been avenged.

Scenes of the cold-blooded shooting of a police officer in the head as he lay wounded on a pavement taken by mobile phone emerge as the two attackers escape.

In the evening, French police name brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi as the suspected killers while a third suspect, reportedly hands himself in.

January 8

As the manhunt for the Charlie Hebdo killers intensifies, a police officer is shot dead by another gunman in the second attack in as many days.

It transpires the police officer shot in the head was Muslim.

The Charlie Hebdo gunmen hold up the owner of a petrol station outside Paris to steal petrol.

Across major cities in Europe rallies are held under the banner “Je Suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) as a sign of solidarity with the victims of the attack.

January 9

The two Charlie Hebdo gunmen are killed after police surround a print shop where they are holed up in a town outside Paris.

At the same time, police storm a kosher grocery store in eastern Paris and kill the man suspected of shooting a police officer a day earlier. Four hostages inside the store die.

Police say a fourth suspect is still at large.

kurt.sansone@timesofmalta.com