Sensitivities

From Paris comes news that the surviving staff members of Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine filled with cartoons poking fun and insults (and offense) at public figures, including Islamists, are coming out with a new edition depicting the Prophet Muhammad holding up a placard declaring that he, too, is Charlie.

The cover stems from the popular hashtag #JeSuisCharlie, an expression of solidarity with the magazine staffers who were gunned down by masked men crying “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) as they raked the Charlie Hebdo offices with automatic gunfire.

The magazine cover likewise proclaims “All is Forgiven” in French, although it isn’t clear (at least to me) who is forgiving who.

In the wake of anger and consternation that the Charlie Hebdo massacre provoked, the surviving staff pushed through with the publication, defying the air of fear and intimidation that the bloody attack might have sought to create. Indeed, with support even from previous rivals, the “new” Charlie Hebdo will come out with some three million copies, a far cry certainly from its previous circulation of 60,000, reprinted in several languages.

But a side issue has emerged. While stories about the new edition, widely welcomed as an expression of press freedom unbowed, have been carried by most media, some outlets had second thoughts about showing or depicting the new “Muhammad” cover or even old Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

CNN cited “sensitivities” of some of its Muslim audience, as did other international publications, who said depictions of the Prophet were considered especially offensive by Muslim believers.

But aren’t these the same “sensitivities” that supposedly provoked the gunmen who claimed alliance with such radical Islamist groups as al-Qaida and the self-proclaimed Islamic State?

* * *

Still on “sensitivities,” I caught a news report on BBC on the recent censorship of the hugely popular Chinese historical drama “The Empress of China.”

After a highly successful debut, the drama was abruptly pulled out of a Chinese network for a few days, and reappeared in literally new clothes.

“The Empress of China” tells the story of Wu Zetian, a concubine during the Tang Dynasty who rose to become the first Chinese empress. But, says a website, “while Tang Dynasty concubines were known to dress in revealing clothes that showed off ample cleavage,” the sight of cleavage after cleavage arrayed in pastel-colored gowns was deemed “too risqué” for state censors.

When the drama finally made an appearance, the characters were shown with the regions below their neck cropped out.

This reminds me of an observation made during the term of an extraordinarily prissy censors chief who issued guidelines that required, among other things, that “only one breast” could be shown onscreen at any time. Foreign viewers of Filipino movies, it was later noted, might come away with the impression that “Filipino women have only one breast each.”

Well, viewers of “The Empress of China” might well conclude that Chinese women, especially concubines, were all talking heads unattached to bodies!

* * *

That is one dilemma that media people, including those who work in the media, produce media content, or regulate it, must continually confront.

Freedom of the press is a democratic ideal, with journalists enjoying protection to carry out their calling, summed as “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.” Among the “comfortable” are some of the most powerful and entitled members of any society: Politicians, political leaders, influential figures, religious icons. And the right to “afflict the comfortable” includes the right to poke fun, to ruffle sensibilities, to insult and to offend—subject to a country’s laws on libel, of course.

If we allow the unrestricted exercise of “the right to offend,” how do we at the same time take care not to cause undue distress, hurt and pain on those who take their religion, race, culture, ideology, and affiliations seriously?

How do we find the balance? Should we even try?

Lines are being drawn all across the increasingly anarchic media field. The new media, especially, are filled with land mines, with no gatekeepers enforcing guidelines or watching out for the possibly libelous and scurrilous.

Words—and images—do hurt. But insults should be met perhaps by counterinsults, too, never by gunfire or violence. To allow ourselves to swing to the far side of conflict is to fall precisely into the scheme of the extremists. In Germany, it is reported, crowds have gathered to express indignation at the supposed “Islamization” of Europe, apparently feeding on the alarm and fear raised by the Charlie Hebdo shooting. The logic of the connection escapes me, as does the alarm raised over Tang Dynasty cleavages. One never knows what will set off the fear and paranoia of those in control, or wanting to assert it.

* * *

Correction: The “Parenting Academy” to be held at St. Luke’s Global City is taking place on Feb. 7, Saturday, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (and not on Feb. 2, as I erroneously wrote).

The Academy is being organized by MLAC (for Mindfulness, Love and Compassion) headed by Dr. Lourdes “Honey” Carandang, one of the country’s foremost authorities on parenting. Apart from Carandang who is listed as keynote speaker, other speakers and facilitators are Inquirer columnist Queena Lee-Chua and her son Scott, Rose Ferrer Fausto, and Dr. Joanna Herrera.

The Academy offers parents of young children and teens guidance on topics like “Connecting with your Teenager,” “Parenting in the Digital Age,” “Financial IQ,” and “Parenting Children with Special Needs.”

For inquiries, contact Jaymee at 09166821437.