Charlie Hebdo; Freedom, Custom, Religion, Caricature, and Violence

The bloody attack last Wednesday on the office of the French cartoon and satire magazine Charlie Hebdo finally ended on Friday evening with the killing of three suspects (according to reports) linked to Al-Qaeda after a two-day pursuit and escape, while one armed suspect fled. During the three days, 18 cartoonists, journalists, citizens, hostages, and French police officers were killed, and several others were injured. By the end of the week, France, after mourning and protesting against the perpetrators of the attack, could finally breathe a sigh of relief. As the dust settled from the storm of violence unleashed by three armed Islamist extremists in Paris, this week's guests on Radio Farda discussed this event and the boundaries of freedom of expression, criticism, satire, and insult in caricature: Reza Moieni, head of the Persian section of Reporters Without Borders in Paris, cartoonist Mana Nystani from Paris, and Ali Asghar Ramadanpour, Deputy Cultural Minister during the presidency of Mohammad Khatami in London. Mr. Moieni, what is your reaction as a journalist in Paris to some of the murdered cartoonists you knew and also in your capacity as a member of Reporters Without Borders regarding the Wednesday attack at the Charlie Hebdo office and the eventual killing of three terrorists on Friday evening? Reza Moieni: First and foremost, it is a matter of sorrow. Sorrow for what has occurred. Sorrow for the precious lives that are no longer with us. And sorrow for an event that can have impacts and reactions not only in one magazine, not only in one city, not only for one country, but globally. Over the past year, we counted more than 67 journalists who were unfortunately killed, but this event, the shooting at the editorial office of a magazine with this perspective, with this terrorizing and brutal nature, I can say, is a kind of sorrowful change that has occurred in society and the world. We have a history behind us. We must dissect this history, visualize it, and clarify its image before us. We are saddened. We are in mourning. But specifically today, we must say that it is an opportunity for thought. An opportunity for reflection. We must see why we have reached this point? Vengeance in relation to freedom of information and freedom of expression cannot be justified by the feelings of reactions that are real, the feelings of mourning that we have and must have. But vengeance must be approached with contemplation and reflection, with a why, and then finding solutions. This historical context is important. Why have we reached this point? We have a history behind us. We must dissect this history, visualize it, and clarify its image before us. Well, this becomes my next question for you, which I actually wanted to ask. But let me pose another question. Mr. Mana Nystani, you are one of the Iranian cartoonists who signed a statement from several Iranian and Afghan cartoonists and humorists condemning the murder of the French cartoonists and a number of citizens of that country last week, as well as a statement from 185 Iranian journalists in reaction to these murders. What is your conclusion regarding the root causes of such events? The root causes that Mr. Moieni referred to. Mana Nystani: The truth is that I see this event as a very tragic incident and the peak of mutual misunderstanding between two ways of thinking and two ideas. A very bloody and disastrous result. On one side is the idea that imagines freedom must exist unconditionally, and this is the right of a citizen of France. On the other side is the idea that holds certain beliefs and sanctities and does not tolerate any approach to them. This was the peak clash of these two perspectives, these two ideas with each other. I have said elsewhere and written that as long as this issue is on paper, in the realm of words, in the realm of talk and conversation, there is no problem. We can discuss this and try to reach an understanding. Or inject perspectives, or transfer them, or exchange them. But when weapons take the place of the pen, in my opinion, there is absolutely no room for any kind of compromise. It is simply unacceptable. I mean, first and foremost, the issue is the safety, security, and lives of people. Then what they think. Mr. Ramadanpour, like Mr. Mana Nystani, you also signed the statement from 185 Iranian journalists condemning the murders from Wednesday to Friday afternoon. How do you root cause this event? Ali Asghar Ramadanpour: In any case, this event, as Mr. Moieni pointed out, is a tragic event and is incomprehensible to any human being with common sense and a sound conscience. Such an attack, as Mr. Nystani pointed out, is indeed a sign of attacking the pen and the realm of freedom of thought, which is also unacceptable under any justification. When weapons take the place of the pen, in my opinion, there is absolutely no room for any kind of compromise. It is simply unacceptable. I mean, first and foremost, the issue is the safety, security, and lives of people. Then what they think. Mana Nystani: But I want to add that alongside this aspect, we must talk about four social realities. One social reality is that the two attackers belong to an armed organization that has been fighting against the French government and its policies for over 15 years. I am not talking about the correctness or incorrectness of their struggle. This time they went to attack a newspaper. Now, under the pretext of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of ISIS or, for example, a caricature about the Prophet of Islam, but the important thing is that, in any case, a radical Islamist group that is fighting against a government has taken action. This is one aspect of reality. But when this comes into the media scene, in the scene of social dialogue, it becomes a symbol of three other social realities. One social reality is that a group may see this from the perspective of the confrontation of belief with freedom of expression and opposition to freedom of expression, another group may see it from the perspective of a type of confrontation, for example, Islamic beliefs with secular and Western beliefs, and see a kind of Islamophobia or Westophobia in it, and a group may see this as a reflection of this trend that in some cultures, visual satire still has a profound effect and is not understood culturally. The event must be viewed from all four aspects and not limited to the fact that only a group of journalists was attacked. In my opinion, this is a fourfold social reality at least, which must be viewed from various angles. Mr. Moieni, you said it is understandable that immediately after these events, writers raise the black flag alongside their colleagues and stand for freedom of expression and highlight this issue. But what about the obligation to avoid offending the conscience of contemporary Muslim believers? When they say that in France itself, complete freedom of the pen does not exist and mocking the sanctities of Jews may lead to expulsion and imprisonment. We live in an interconnected world. That is, over the past nearly half a century, with the expansion of communications, with the expansion of mass media, the world has become interconnected. Values and cultures have intertwined. How can we ensure that these cultures coexist, that humans coexist, and continue their lives? Undoubtedly, there are many striking differences among these cultures. What the wise people of the world have reached is a law or a set of international laws that have been crystallized in international human rights covenants and laws. We have these laws. These laws are not based on the cultural or religious relativity of this or that. I mean, if someone in Africa worships a tree and believes that this tree says that children’s heads should be cut off, well, this cannot be accepted in the world as a thought, as an opinion. The center of this global view is human dignity. This human dignity and this collection that places humans at its center is international law. We have laws for these issues. There is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is the International Covenant on Civil Rights. Civil and political rights. Various articles of it have addressed this issue. I cannot sit here and say that a certain cartoon drawn by Mana Nystani, because it was drawn this way and that line was drawn, is considered an insult to my beliefs. Who should determine this? Who is the judge? These are the laws and the proper judge and specific conditions. That there has been belief, our friend is right when they refer to social issues, but wherever from the beginning of creation until today, insults to a main issue and to murder and killing have been carried out, it has been a matter of power and politics, it has been spoken, it has been said, it has been criticized and satirized. Since the time of the Prophet of Islam and before him. Since the time of Christ and Moses. But as long as it did not threaten power and as long as it did not become a means against politics, there was practically no suppression and killing. We have Ibn Muqaffa in our history. As long as he did not threaten power, he spoke. This is power. What I said is that we must look at how political issues have been raised and pursued in international institutions over the past approximately 40 years. Let me give you an example. Just a few weeks ago, a cleric from one of these countries issued a fatwa against a local newspaper. But the main basis of it began with Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie. If the world had decisively addressed this issue at that time, beyond the specific interests and benefits they had, it would not have become such that people, out of fear and terror of what they think, could not even think due to bullets or bombs. I think we must place the political issue at the center and see how power and the relationship of power have acted with this recent history. Thirteen Islamic countries come to the commission and then the Human Rights Council and raise an issue under the name of belief or anything else that they place alongside blasphemy or insult. They want to turn it into a law. Who will defend this law? The most repressive countries in the world alongside China, namely Russia. Well, this is a political issue. What are the backgrounds of the shooting of these two radical Islamists? What feeds them? It is claimed or the statements they make that there has been an insult. Who determines what is an insult? What was insulting and what was not? Very well. In response to the next question, to the point I mentioned that critics of this type of view you highlight as a double standard, explain that as well. Mr. Nystani, one of your cartoons, as Mr. Moieni pointed out, became controversial in Iran a few years ago as an ethnic insult. Has that experience not led you to think differently about what some say that there is a thin but important line between freedom of expression and freedom to insult? Essentially, my life as a cartoonist in Iran has caused my perspective and perception of this medium to differ from my French colleagues. Because I have never felt that I am part of the majority in Iran, which is predominantly believing in modernity and democracy, etc. I have always felt that I am part of a minority that believed in things that perhaps did not align with the traditional beliefs of the people. With its political system, it has never aligned. It has been in contradiction. I have always worked in threat and insecurity. As a result, not only I, but I as a type of Iranian cartoonist, we Iranian cartoonists have always tried to navigate carefully. We have always tried to find a way to establish dialogue with the society we are in, which has religious roots. These are our audiences. This is very different from a French society that has gone through many historical periods. It has reached a certain stability in its political and social system. It has codified an acceptable constitutional framework, and now they feel that after all the historical periods they have gone through, why shouldn’t they enjoy this freedom that is their right? We in Iran were just trying and are trying to achieve this freedom, I don’t know how many decades or centuries later. We must engage in dialogue with this society. As a result, many times we resort to self-censorship. I mean, we do this voluntarily. We navigate carefully. This has entered our culture of caricature and cartoon. It has always been there. Nevertheless, still, many times misunderstandings occur, intentionally or unintentionally. I think this is the difference between our work and that of the colleagues who were killed. They saw no reason for such compromise and understanding. Well, in the end, we reached this bitter conclusion and this confrontation. What should be done, the future will determine. When the heat of the fire that has been kindled subsides a bit and a more rational perspective is taken again. Now, in response to the next question, perhaps you can elaborate on this point further. Mr. Ramadanpour, now I will ask you the counterpart of the question I asked Mr. Mana Nystani. Supporters of absolute freedom of expression without limits say that there is no objective and single criterion for defining instances and determining the limits of insult. They say that everyone defines insult according to their own taste, and if all these sensitivities are to be taken into account, then no cartoons can be drawn, no humor can be written, and nothing can be done. What is your response to this argument? I, of course, am one of those who, in theory, support absolute freedom of expression. I mean, I say you have the right to present anything in your media, whether verbally or visually, and your opponent can only protest against you, or demonstrate, or write, or even come to court to complain.