2015, in France, a group of radical Muslims assassinated several French cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo’s group. The heinous act was a retaliation for the Cartoonists’ depicting Prophet Mohammad’s caricatures. The action that the French Muslims considered an insult to their faith.
The world roared against this crime. The common belief was that the cartoonists exercised their rights, expressing their freedom of speech and thoughts, a process of acceptable measures. However, did they have the right to insult other people for their conviction and faith. On the flip side who has given them such right? Are there any articles in any nation’s civil laws allowing individuals to slander other citizens’ for what they hold sacred?
I published a commentary on that subject in the Persian Heritage periodical, number 78, of 2015. I discussed, objectively, all aspects of the story, elaborated on the extent of the abuses and misuses on the subject of freedom.
Now five years later, we are back on square one again! A teacher of history and geography in France shows his pupils cartoons of Prophet Mohammad, allegedly after asking those sensitive to the issue to leave the room. Here are the question and the concern: why should he feel the need to show cartoons of someone sacred to a part of his Society that considers such a blasphemy?
I have no quarrels with the essentials of freedom of speech and thought and value them immensely. It constitutes a part of the advanced intellectuality of a society. However, like any other means of peaceful coexistence, there should be a check and balance in this matter. Where do we place the limit? Do we accept that there should be a control on our interpretation of the words? We are mindful of the fact that “The absolute Freedom is in the realm of Animals and not the Human-beings.”
Human Societies, for everyone’s well-being, have placed rules and regulations for communities, curbing what they can or can’t, or should and should not do. For a well-organized and smoothly run society, its members must adhere to those limitations.
What we are observing in today’s French Society, is somewhat more complicated than meet the eyes. It seems that the problems involved are much more profound than can be appreciated. Such is the relation between French governments and French Christians versus its Muslim population. The deep division of France’s Muslim minority and its Christian majority seems to be reminiscent of its colonial era. Those people and their offspring constitute the majority of the nation’s Muslim populace. Unfortunately, the afflicted wounds of the epoch past have not as yet healed. Most of these people still bear a deep hatred toward the French.
The atrocities committed by the European colonialism, mainly the French, the British, and the Russians in the preceding few centuries toward the Middle Eastern and the Levant plays a significant role in today’s problems.
After WWI and the Ottoman Empire’s defeat, the League of Nations created a mandate status, placing Syria and Lebanon under the French guardianship. On the same token, it put Iraq and other parts of the Levant under the British. Such action was another form of colonialism created by and for Europeans’ benefit—the whole idea, fomented by the British and was a part of their betrayal.
The Arab lands’ distribution after the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire was decided by the Anglo-French agreement in May 1916, long before the end of the war. It is known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement (Mark Sykes, British and François Georges-Picot, French representatives.)
During the 1920s, the Syrians fought for their independence on numerous occasions. The French Army crushed them, inflicting heavy casualties. The Syrians were not able to get out of the League of Nations Mandate until 1943.
On November 8, 1943, When Lebanon elected a president and Prime Minister (Bashara El Khoury and Riad al-Solh), French Government, unwilling to end the mandate, arrested the country’s leaders. Facing international outcries, they retreated. (See the article on “Development of Violence and Sectarianism in Lebanon” by Alicia Mallo, University of Akron.)
The French, promoting Sectarianism, forged internal disharmony and wars among the people of different religious persuasions. In 1860 the French massacred many innocent people in Syria, known as the “Massacre of 60, or Madhabih al-Siitin”, causing the death of 5000-10,000 Syrians.
The French did not subscribe to any measures of decency in dealing with Syrians. In 1925, responding to their demand for freedom, the French army bombarded Damascus, shelled the city with tanks and machine-guns, and burned the surrounding villages, bringing unprecedented casualties to Syria’s citizens.
In another despicable act, and to degrade the freedom-fighters, the French military decided on an atrocious means to humiliate the freedom-fighters. They “paraded camel loads of dead bodies of the fighters and unloaded the corps and left them for display in the town square.” What a reprehensible act!
No doubt that the Franco-Algerian relation ending with the war of 1954-1962 should be considered another factor in the present situation. French government kept Algerians hostage for over 130 years, benefiting from their national resources. The Algerians fought for their freedom and independence and lost hundreds of thousands during their wars for freedom. It was not until March 18, 1962, that they signed a Peace Treaty in Evian, France.
These stories were told from one generation to the next by word of mouth. The same way that the Iranians will never forget the British and Russians’ criminal actions for over two centuries, and that the hatred toward the British will never diminish in the mind of Indians.
I mentioned these stories to shed light on what could be contributing factors to France’s problems. However, we should not interpret them as a justification for the nefarious and flagrant actions committed by Chechen Muslims in France’s recent incidence or any such scandalous measures taken by anyone.
On October 30, 2020, three more French were killed by Muslims in Nice. What is taking place indicates a sign of total lack of leadership. Isn’t there anyone with some intelligence to lead and manage the conflict, granted that it is not an easy job? Who are the responsible parties? All sections of the French population: the French government and the Leaders of the French Muslims and French Christians.
French News Agency, “France 24,” reported on October 30, 2020, that Turkish President, Erdogan, has threatened taking legal action against Charlie Hebdo’s group for making his caricatures?
Why is this group of cartoonists so adamant about insulting others? Why the French people, its government, and the world populace can’t differentiate “Freedom of Speech and thoughts against slander and defamation. It is immature and childish trying to destroy the relationship between the members of a nation by being selfish and wrongly adhering to a principle that, in reality, does not apply to their cause.
It reminds me of the American news media, such as “The Times,” that, during the Iranian Nationalization of Oil, insulted Dr. Mossadegh, calling him, among other, “Crazy MO.” To justify their shameful act they used similar phrases as FREEDOM OF SPEECH, Freedom of the Press. They never could realize that they were insulting a nation that loved and respected its Prime Minister.
Isn’t it time to redefine the meaning of freedom of speech and thought?
Guils of Guilan 