Paris,
France. The city of love has been under constant scrutiny this past week after
a series of less than amorous events. Today, Charlie Hebdo has printed another cover
depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
The
original attack on the satirical magazine, although not entirely unprovoked,
was appalling and the aftershocks of the two hostage situations added to already
terrifying circumstances. As France grieves for those killed in the attacks,
Charlie Hebdo has made the decision to once again publish the Prophet Muhammad
on the front cover of their most recent edition. Whilst many people have taken
to the streets under the slogan ‘Je suis Charlie’, I am struggling to
understand why the magazine has repeated their actions.
I am a big
believer in freedom of speech, but there needs to be boundaries; when an idea
strays from being controversial and becomes offensive, a line needs to be
drawn. I am not religious in any way, but I feel it is very important to
respect those who are, and take into account their beliefs. In Islam, all images
of Muhammad are forbidden; whether they are drawings or paintings or dolls, it
is Muslim belief that representations of Muhammad shouldn’t exist. This is the
reasoning behind the original attack on the magazine, and whilst I am not in
any way condoning the actions of the three gunmen, I fail to see the logic in
printing Muhammad’s image again. It is clearly offensive for Muslims, and that’s
why I think that freedom of speech is a weak argument in this matter; it is no
longer about being able to say what you want, but maintaining levels of respect
for other peoples beliefs.
This morning,
my mum said something to me that really made me think: “If you lived next to an
angry bear, would you poke it with a stick simply because you had the freedom
to do so?” The obvious answer is no. So why does this basic logic not apply to
the situation in Paris? Whilst the freedom to print images of the Prophet
Muhammad exists, it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so. It may be that some
people fail to realise or understand Muslim beliefs about representations of
Muhammad, because we are so used to seeing images of Jesus and God and not
thinking twice about them.
But when
printing such images results in 17 lives being lost, should people not then
realise that maybe it’s not a fantastic idea?
I’m not
entirely convinced this is even slightly coherent but I’m too tired to try and
do a decent job of editing it, so let’s just hope I make some sort of sense
first time around.
