Andrej Školkay: Liberal fundamentalists and
religious cartoons
Caricatures arouse fatal passions. Predominant or at least the most visible public
debate in Europe, including Slovakia, seems to favor the idea that freedom of
expression (press or media) is the decisive factor of a free society, regardless of the
consequences. Several arguments are sounded: The first argument is that freedom
of speech is absolute: either it exists or it does not. The second argument is that our
laws and customs apply here (in Europe, in France and Slovakia). The third
argument is that terrorists would attack anyway, and cartoons were just a pretext for
this attack.
Of course, that is a natural position for journalists. It is a pragmatic basis for tackling
several potential ethical dilemmas.
Some leftist and right-wing intellectuals with clearly defined views hold the same
stance. For them, this position is also natural, since clear-cut opinions inherently
inevitably lead to radical ideas and attitudes in virtually all areas. A type of a
(radical) integrity and consistency of thought is also necessary for prestigious and
psychological reasons.
But neither journalists nor intellectuals are infallible in their beliefs and attitudes.
And it is not the only possible attitude, nor necessarily the only correct attitude. This
is also the case of the reaction of several media and intellectuals to the recent
tragic events in France. It is necessary to remind ourselves that a number of
fundamental human rights and freedoms exist.
If we return to the first argument- freedom of speech either exists or not – it is
clearly an absurd argument. Stanley Fish offers the best answer in his book
„There’s No Such Thing As Free Speech. And It’s a Good Thing, Too”. Briefly, the
boundaries of the freedom of speech constantly change in time, but the absolute
freedom of speech in practice does not exist anywhere. Because the absolute
freedom is the idealized version of anarchy (society without a government),
classless society, or paradise. In all of these versions of society, we find,
theoretically speaking, an unlimited freedom of speech. It was most poignantly
expressed by the Frenchmen (not by accident) – Albert Camus. “The only way to
deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is
an act of rebellion”.
The second group claims that our laws and customs apply here (in Europe, France,
or in Slovakia). It is an argumentation that is most frequently used implicitly, though
at times also explicitly: “this is our home” (to put it simply) will not do. Apart form the
fact that Muslims are also at home here (especially in France), denigration of
religion operates across borders. Besides that, it is only an unnecessary argument
for the fanatics as an excuse for killing. It is possible that they will find another one,
but likely one even less persuasive. And the modern world is about the battle of
arguments, even in a battle with the fanatics inspired by religion in the first place. In
other words, it is possible that we will allow to be defeated by our own arrogance
first.
The third discussion group claims that terrorists would attack either way and that
the cartoons were but a pretex for the attack. More so, the local Muslim groups are
painted with a broad brush, it is assumed that there is some longterm hatred toward
the country where they live and where many of them were born.
Well, in both cases (the Danish cartoons from December 2005 and the French
cartoons from January 2015), the attacks were preceded by peaceful protests and
requests from the side of the Muslim communities. Those remained unheard. In the
first case, they were ignored by the local politicians, and in the second case, they
were dismissed by the court.
The French were publishing the cartoons for a long time, therefore it wasn’t a one
time aberration of the attackers’ mind. It is obvious, that the attackers have chosen
a concrete target with a concrete goal – and did not act irrationally in this case.
According to published information, they were in the Near East, where they most
likely acquired training and perhaps inspiration. In other words, the selection was
not arbitrary, it was vengeance targeted at concrete people. In the end, the fact that
the killers had a list of names confirms this assumption. This clarifies their
motivation, but of course it does not pardon their act. We can assume with a high
degree of probability, bordering on certainty, that if the magazine would not have
published controversial cartoons over a long period of time, there would have been
no attack against its editorial board. It is quite possible that the murderers would
have joined the fights in Syria or Iraq. It is also possible that they would have taken
part in another terrorist attack in Europe, but their target would have been different.
It is important that the current target of the attack, the magazine and its editors, had
greater legitimacy in the eyes of many Muslims than an attack against random
civilians. Several demonstrations in multiple Muslim countries support that thesis. I
don’t recall such demonstrations taking place after the terrorist attacks against the
subway and a bus in London or a train in Madrid.
Neither of the outraged discussion groups bears the consequences for their radical
views. The case of the murder of a part of the editorial board of the magazine
Charlie Hebdo and the worldwide reactions to it prove that it is the exception
confirming the rule. Fortunately. It is however crucial to realize that absolutization of
the freedom of speech, including in the form of cartoons insulting the dark
foundations of human culture, can, from time to time, lead to extreme reactions.
Sadly, history is full of religion-inspired violence. There are only a few monotheistic
religions that do not include detailed violent scenes within their “sacred” books. Yes,
as the New York Times has stated: while the Bible is descriptive, the Quran is
prescriptive when it comes to this. That means that the Bible describes acts of
violence, but does not require anyone to act on them. The Quran certainly contains
more explicit instructions when it comes to violence, but again, the result is closely
dependent on its (word for word) (des)interpretation. Christian believers did not
have a problem to use violence in the past either, when the representative of God
on Earth called, despite the peaceloving nature of the Bible. Majority of
monotheistic religions requires a blind obedience of God, or of his current
representative on earth, or of “divine” inspiration, which again allows for various
interpretations and acts of the abiding subjects in practice. Religions, as well as
some ideologies, do not operate on the basis of rational discussion, but- on the
basis of faith. We cannot rationally discuss faith, and it is not possible to expect
rational action always and everywhere. So much, briefly, on religion, freedom of
speech and criticism of religion through cartoons.
How to deal with this problem with majority of religions and some ideologies?
Modern states and societies found the answer in separation of the religious from
the earthly, and in tolerance of otherwise ideologically intolerable to the degree that
it does not threaten the very foundation of tolerance. This also goes for
communication that is too expressive. We can take Slovak legislation as an
example. Perhaps this will come as a surprise to some, but our legislation contains
a number of limitations of the freedom of speech in various forms. Suffice it to
mention the question of the Holocaust or Nazi symbols. Penal Code, for example,
forbids public denial, doubt or support of the Holocaust or of the crimes based on
fascist ideology. Why is that so if freedom of speech is above all? It is forbidden to
promote a group of people or a movement, which violates basic human rights
through committing or threatening violence or another severe deprivation. There are
many such restrictions, not only within the Penal Code. Some prohibitions could
really be debated. How is it related to the cartoons? Not everything can be
tolerated, not everything can be forbidden by law. Irony and humor are always on
the edge between what is acceptable as humor and what offends a part of the
population. It is an issue that can be concretely localized. Even the European Court
for Human Rights does not wish to decide in very local (national) cases, which are
bound to local culture, but follows opinions, e.g. takes into consideration the views
of the local courts.
If we know that we live in a country where jokes about Záhoráks are considered to
be dehonesting by (several) Záhoráks, it would be appropriate to consider their
publication or refine their content. Out of politeness and respect, not out of fear.
Several media took this route before, especially in the U.S or in Great Britain, when
they decided not to publish some cartoons ridiculing the prophet Mohammed.
Today, some media do so out of fear. Yes, we got into a situation, when the freedom
of speech is limited by internal ethical limits, but by fear of external (fatal) threat.
It is hard to say to what extent we’d be in this situation also without the ethical selflimitation, but it is certain that the fanatics were not motivated only by the last few
published cartoons.
In other words, the power and self-esteem does not mean doing everything despite
the wishes of the weaker or less numerable (or more aggressive or sensitive).
Internal power manifests itself the most in self-restrain and self-control. This is not a
defense of the murderers of the French cartoonists. The point is that the reactions
of our media and intellectuals indicate that they still view tolerance as our radical
vision of freedom, which is not far removed from anarchy or a particular majority
opinion or totality.
In yet other words, if we are not publishing the really insulting jokes about the Jews,
Záhoráks, Easterners, Scots, Czechs, or Hungarians (and there used to be
a multitude of these jokes) in Slovakia anymore, or if we cannot publicly deny the
Holocaust or the crimes of fascism or communism, why should it be OK to rudely
insult the supporters of one of the most widespread faiths on the planet, even if in
a form of cartoons? If anyone believes that this is a radically wrong opinion, why
then several British and American media did not publish the controversial cartoons
to this day but limited themselves to their description? Is it possible that in the
cradle of J.S. Mill, J. Milton, or G. Washington, T. Jefferson or A. Lincold, they do not
understand the meaning of the freedom of the press?
It will be decisive whether we will assume the position of liberal fundamentalism,
where truth and freedom are above all regardless circumstances and links, or if we
will assume the value position of liberal pragmatism, where truth and freedom are –
theoretically – still above all, but do take the relevant circumstances and
connections into regard, including the possible consequences.
In the case of liberal fundamentalism, one of the more or less admitted goals (as
was also the case with the Danish daily Jyllands Posten publishing the cartoons of
Mohammed) is allegedly cultivating tolerance by exposing the readers of viewers to
extreme diversity. We know how it ended then. Several people died in multiple
countries (most frequently Muslims), and several buildings burnt down (mostly
Danish or belonging to the EU). Today, we know that outside of France, there were
victims elsewhere, after the attacks, while protesting the cartoons. Today, the daily
Jyllands Posten does not want to publish any religious cartoons. What will it be like
in a few years here? Will we hand the excuses for killing to the religious fanatics, or
will we deprive them of one such opportunity? Which is a better solution?
Andrej Školkay
Author is the Director of the School of Communication and Media.