Paris’ Charlie, PH’s Carlos

The commando attack on the offices of the French weekly paper Charlie Hebdo in Paris has been condemned the world over as an attack on press freedom by religious extremists. For Filipinos who think they can be democratic but still be illiberal toward causes and minorities they dislike, the timing couldn’t have been more uncanny.

Also this week, yet another Filipino journalist was murdered. And the Court of Appeals confirmed the criminal charges against a protester for “offending religious feelings” of Catholic and other Christian clergymen. In a few days, a pope, after 20 years, will again set foot on Philippine soil. The events in Paris offer us either the perfect teaching moment, or the proverbial perfect storm.

In Paris, 12 people, including the editor and nine other members of the Charlie Hebdo staff, were murdered while they were holding their regular editorial meeting in their offices by masked men shouting, “We have avenged the Prophet Mohammad!” Their paper, in the words of the BBC, “combines left-wing radicalism with a provocative scurrility that often borders on the obscene.”

The paper’s editor had said, “The aim is to laugh … We want to laugh at the extremists—every extremist. They can be Muslim, Jewish, Catholic. Everyone can be religious, but extremist thoughts and acts we cannot accept.” The British Guardian defended them, saying there was something “distinctly French about the form of offensiveness that Charlie Hebdo reveled in.” The paper had already been fire-bombed and razed in 2011 over depictions of the prophet Mohammad. Yet even in the aftermath of the killing, even its own defenders conceded that the paper had racist depictions of Islam.

For Filipinos, this signals the alarm that journalists have seemingly become legitimate targets of attack. Five years ago, 32 journalists died in the Ampatuan massacre and today, of the 197 accused, only 113 have been arrested, and those in custody are still being tried. The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility reports that, since 1986 when we regained our freedom, 145 Filipino journalists and media workers have been killed in the line of duty, 25 of them during President Aquino’s term. The latest journalist casualty is Nerlita Ledesma, who was gunned down while waiting for a ride in Bataan. For us, the Paris killings are familiar but stand out for their brazenness.

Moreover, they should remind us of the place of tolerance in a functioning democracy. The Court of Appeals has just affirmed the conviction of celebrity tour guide Carlos Celdran for “offending religious feelings.”

Celdran’s “Damaso” metaphor is so apt and wields the same power as Charlie Hebdo’s parody.

This is not the first attempt by the Catholic clergy to silence speech it finds distasteful. Remember the sudden cancellation by the Cultural Center of the Philippines of an art exhibit because of an art work titled “Poleteismo”? Perhaps this time the honorable justices, by timing their decision for the arrival of Pope Francis, might have thought they were simply demonstrating their piety. But it is possible that the Pope, who visits Manila on the theme of “mercy and compassion,” might likewise detest the Padre Damasos in our midst and be more progressive and open-minded than his Filipino brethren.

Those who stand in solidarity with the slain journalists in Paris are correct that the killings shouldn’t provoke a fresh wave of “Islamophobic backlash.” As the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof says, “The great divide is not between faiths. Rather it is between terrorists and moderates, between those who are tolerant and those who

‘otherize’.” Already, even Muslim activists and leaders, including the Arab League and the Grand Mosque of Paris, have condemned the attackers for having “betrayed and tainted Islam,” and called for their prosecution. Kristof concludes: “But let’s be careful not to respond to terrorists’ intolerance with our own.”

The Paris killings remind us Filipinos that our commitment to press freedom has been judged and found wanting. It should remind our courts that ours is a Constitution not just of order but of liberty as well, and that if Paris can rise to protect the right of Charlie Hebdo to be sarcastic, Manila should be able to stand up for the right of Carlos Celdran to find the juiciest historical metaphor for the alienated clergy.