Celdran, Charlie and a Christian free speech
Filipinos continually fail to distinguish the right to free speech and how the right is used. A patriot may defend the right but disclaim how the likes of Charlie Hebdo and Carlos Celdran use it.
As Filipinos join the world in reposting “Je Suis Charlie” signs, a witty graphic went around Facebook asking if they truly understand this cause, given that they had wanted Dan Brown and Claire Danes banned from the Philippines for describing Manila as “the gates of hell” and “smelled of cockroaches,” respectively. It is easy to defend free speech when the context is alien and distant, such as cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in Paris, but the true test comes with speech that pricks what one holds dear.
The Western media grappled with whether republishing cartoons that hurt many Muslims was the proper reaffirmation of free speech. (Muslims consider graphic depiction of the Prophet offensive.) The New York Times professed respect for Muslim readers and was the only US newspaper to refuse to reprint the new Muhammad cartoon on the cover of Charlie Hebdo’s post-attack issue. All others reprinted it, citing its newsworthiness, given that it was selling out in Paris as the leaders of England, Australia, Turkey and Syria publicly debated its merit. Canada’s Globe and Mail argued against reprinting old cartoons immediately after the attacks, arguing that free speech is best honored in one’s own editorial voice.
Similarly, Catholics hurt by Celdran’s raising his “Damaso” placard in the Manila Cathedral during an ecumenical meeting (not a Mass) must understand that the President and others opposed to jailing him are themselves Catholics and would not commit any perceived blasphemy in a church. Adoption of the act, agreement with his political message, and disapproval of his jail sentence are three different things.
Aggrieved faithful ask whether Celdran has the right to enter one’s home and protest there, but this argues the wrong debate. Critics ask, not whether he has this positive right, but whether the crime “offending religious feelings” is defined in a way that violates free speech. It punishes, not causing disruption in a place of religious worship, but acts that cause offense in a religious context. A judge is forced to analyze what the accused said against religion, meaning it can only be analyzed under free-speech doctrines, venue aside. Because the crime is defined to jail someone only if the audience disagrees, it is blatantly unconstitutional. The definition does not focus on whether an act incites violence, and as Inquirer.net commenter Hadiong put it, the crime is so subjective that Pope Francis might be jailed had he scolded our bishops in the Manila Cathedral. Instead of addressing this basic “viewpoint discrimination” in the crime’s definition, the Court of Appeals practically argued that anything insulting is not protected speech. This is the nuanced free-speech debate that the aggrieved refuse to hear.
After the new Charlie Hebdo cover, Muslims worldwide and Pope Francis himself proposed that free speech should not shield insult to religion. A ban on so-called hate speech may be justified because it is “low value,” it incites or inflicts hurt without communicating any underlying idea beyond raw loathing. Many countries impose such bans, with Germany banning the swastika and Nazi salute and Singapore banning racist speech after experiencing race riots.
The problem with such bans, however, is where to draw the line, and the shallow debate on Celdran’s sentence makes one wonder if our society is mature enough for this quandary. His placard did not attack religious doctrine but criticized bishops’ political acts, and French pundits ask that we understand Charlie Hebdo in the context of its uniquely ultraliberal political satire. One fears unintended suppression of legitimate political speech that touches on religious figures. For example, might a hate-speech ban deter discussion of election posters on the Bacolod cathedral’s facade, bishops’ receiving government funds to purchase cars, or Pope Francis’ speech in Malacañang? American and Philippine tradition avoid the dilemma of having to define hate speech by instead empowering society to disclaim it. Thus, it may be more meaningful to our Muslim brethren and our peace process if Christians affirm that they do not support Charlie Hebdo’s depictions of Muhammad in the name of free speech, instead of simply banning the cartoons in the Philippines.
As yet another example, Rappler’s Margie de Leon wrote “A Filipino atheist’s letter,” suggesting it may be unconstitutional to devote so much government resources to a religious leader such as the Pope. The letter was met with hundreds of lengthy, insulting Internet comments that refused to hear her idea even though it properly cited our Constitution, instead of simply rebutting that it is legitimately secular for a government to ensure security with millions trooping to the streets. The religious dimension has impeded meaningful debate of the likes of Celdran’s sentence, with intellectual criticism met with hurtful, angry, ideological outbursts that contrast with the calm with which Jesus debated the devil himself during his temptation.
These recent experiences must remind us that it is perfectly Christian to listen to speech that offends. When our hearts are hardened and our minds are closed shut, when we feel righteous in strapping on a bomb in Jesus’ name or condemning a man to jail, this may be the time when we most desperately need to respect free speech and accept that one might not be wiser than the entire human race and all future generations combined.
* * *
React on Twitter (@oscarfbtan) and facebook.com/OscarFranklinTan.
