Does Charlie Hebdo trump Filipino Muslims?
The global debate on Charlie Hebdo reignited after the magazine’s surviving staff released a new issue with a new cartoon of Mohammad holding a “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) sign on the cover. (Muslims consider any visual depiction of the prophet offensive.) But why have Muslim Filipino voices been conspicuously absent from local op-eds in this protracted debate?
Basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar lamented how “people like myself who are on media speed-dial under ‘Celebrity Muslims’ are thrust in the spotlight to angrily condemn, disavow, and explain—again—how these barbaric acts are in no way related to Islam,” considering that “when the Ku Klux Klan burns a cross in a black family’s yard, Christians aren’t required to explain how these aren’t really Christian acts.” The Muslim perspective is crucial as the Charlie issue grows far beyond the murders. As two million people marched in Paris for free speech, joined by no less than the British prime minister and the German chancellor, there were attacks on mosques across France. A Filipino Muslim studying in London told me she had cancelled her trip there because she was genuinely afraid to go wearing a veil.
A week later, 15,000 held an anti-Islam rally in Dresden, Germany, with 5,500 holding a counterprotest. After the Charlie survivor issue sold out and eventually increased its print run from a preattack 60,000 to a French industry record of 7 million, 800,000 indignant Muslims marched in Grozny, Chechnya, 20,000 each in Kabul and Herat in Afghanistan, 15,000 in Islamabad, Pakistan, and thousands more in Kashmir, Iran, Algeria, Sudan, Jordan and Gaza. Ten died and over 40 churches were torched in Niger in the worst violence. “I am not Charlie, I am Mohammad” became a spontaneous counterslogan around the world.
We must ask if our own reactions were made in a vacuum and overlooked how they might be misinterpreted by Filipino Muslims as support for the actual cartoons. Indeed, the 1,500 Filipinos in Marawi who burned a Charlie poster in protest received more prominence in the foreign media, and Indonesian and Malaysian leaders’ unease over the new cover fueling further extremism was not covered.
Free speech is not an end unto itself. We may both defend the right to speech that may offend and discourage speech that offends with no conceivable political or social context. In the 2003 MVRS Publications case, the magazine Bulgar wrote that Muslims worship pigs as god. The Supreme Court ruled there was no libel because there were no specifically affected persons. Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio famously dissented that the court should hold the magazine liable under another law given that the article was utterly reckless and irresponsible and the court must “demonstrate to our Muslim brothers that their grievances can be redressed under the rule of law.”
We can infer Filipino Muslims’ unvoiced misgivings from their positive reactions to Pope Francis’ stand that free speech should not be used to insult religion, which we interpret as a moral call and not a legal prohibition, and to Davao Jesuit Joel Tabora’s wishing that the Charlie survivors had exercised restraint. Pope Francis has shown great respect for other religions by praying in Istanbul’s Blue Mosque and wearing a saffron-colored robe from Sri Lankan Hindus, and we must embrace his example as we pass the Bangsamoro Basic Law. We need not wait for our Muslim brethren to take to the streets for us to affirm that they should never be asked to label themselves as “moderate Muslims” or apologize on terrorists’ behalf.
Charlie Hebdo must be a learning moment not just for romanticizing free speech in a vacuum, but also for reflecting how we can lay a better foundation of mutual respect that will make the BBL more than a piece of paper. Many of us can better appreciate Islam beyond knowing only that Muslims do not eat pork, fast during Ramadan, and can have four wives. Many of us unconsciously reinforce ugly stereotypes when we say things like “Carlos Celdran should try to protest in a mosque!” Lasting peace will come easier when every Filipino grows up having read Koran and Bible alike, studied Sultan Kudarat alongside Jose Rizal, and seen how the grand domes and great spires of the world’s most famous mosques rival the beauty of its most famous cathedrals.
* * *
Last week, a retired justice wrote a commentary arguing that Celdran’s jail sentence for “offending religious feelings” merely gives space to exercise religion and does not violate free speech. The commentary declined to address specific points raised by “some quarters in the media” whose “dismissive attitude” it noted. Instead, it summarized general free speech rules in US decisions from 1919 to 1951.
For directly applicable US decisions, consider R.A.V. vs City of St. Paul, the classic US decision that struck down an antihate speech law in 1992 for being phrased in a way that blatantly violates free speech. A teenager burned a cross in his African-American neighbor’s yard and was punished under a law that prohibited symbols that arouse anger on the basis of race or religion. The US Supreme Court invalidated the law because the way it was written embodied “viewpoint discrimination” and allowed someone to speak of racial or religious tolerance but punished someone who responded with the opposite argument, thus violating free speech. This was proper even if a law that merely prohibited trespass, threats or inciting to violence would have been valid. This logic readily applies to how our crime “offending religious feelings” is defined, and a US justice would likewise free Celdran.
* * *
React on Twitter (@oscarfbtan) and facebook.com/OscarFranklinTan.
