Written for The Muslim Times by Dr. Abdul Alim

Probably not! because they could be jailed for a year in France for that offense. In fact Charlie Hebdo fired one of its cartoonists in 2009 for just suggesting something that could have sounded anti- Semitic (seem more later on), but this is where the self-righteous efforts for freedom of expression for Charlie Hebdo ends.

To paint any opposition to some of the work of Charlie Hebdo, as a struggle against Freedom of Expression, is as flawed as the ideology that led to the tragic and condemnable terrorist’s attack in the first place.

For those who may not know, several European governments including France have passed laws in early 1990s making denial of holocaust a punishable offense. Following information is extracted from wikipedia:

In France, the Gayssot Act, voted for on July 13, 1990, makes it illegal to question the existence of crimes that fall in the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945, on the basis of which Nazi leaders were convicted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-46. When the act was challenged by Robert Faurisson, the Human Rights Committee upheld it as a necessary means to counter possible anti-Semitism.[22] In 2012, the Constitutional Council of France ruled that to extend the Gayssot Act to the Armenian Genocide denial was unconstitutional because it violated the freedom of speech.[23]

LAW No 90-615 to repress acts of racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia (1990)

MODIFICATIONS OF THE LAW OF JULY 29, 1881 ON THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS Art 8. – Article 24 of the Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881 is supplemented by the following provisions: In the event of judgment for one of the facts envisaged by the preceding subparagraph, the court will be able moreover to order: Except when the responsibility for the author of the infringement is retained on the base for article 42 and the first subparagraph for article 43 for this law or the first three subparagraphs for article 93-3 for the law No 82-652 for July 29, 1982 on the audio-visual communication, the deprivation of the rights enumerated to the 2o and 3o of article 42 of the penal code for imprisonment of five years maximum;

Art 9. – As an amendment to Article 24 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 24 (a) is as follows written: <<Art. 24 (a). – those who have disputed the existence of one or more crimes against humanity such as they are defined by Article 6 of the statute of the international tribunal military annexed in the agreement of London of August 8, 1945 and which were a carried out either by the members of an organization declared criminal pursuant to Article 9 of the aforementioned statute, or by a person found guilty such crimes by a French or international jurisdiction shall be punished by one month to one year’s imprisonment or a fine.

Art 13. – It is inserted, after article 48-1 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 48-2 thus written: <<Art. 48-2. – publication or publicly expressed opinion encouraging those to whom it is addressed to pass a favourable moral judgment on one or more crimes against humanity and tending to justify these crimes (including collaboration) or vindicate their perpetrators shall be punished by one to five years’ imprisonment or a fine.[24]”

And if you thought that some people have not seen this against the right of freedom of expression please read the following para where it is clear that a battle has been fought to overturn these laws.

Continued From Wikipedia: “The argument that laws punishing Holocaust denial are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been rejected by institutions of the Council of Europe (the European Commission of Human Rights,[7]the European Court of Human Rights[8]) and also by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.[9]

Historians who oppose such laws include Raul Hilberg,[10] Richard J. Evans, and Pierre Vidal-Naquet. Other prominent opponents of the laws are Timothy Garton Ash, [11]  Christopher Hitchens, Peter Singer,[12] and Noam Chomsky.[13] An uproar resulted when Serge Thionused one of Chomsky’s essays without explicit permission as a foreword to a book of Holocaust denial essays (see Faurisson affair). These laws have also been criticized on the grounds that education is more effective than legislation at combating Holocaust denial and that the laws will make martyrs out of those imprisoned for their violation.[14]

The above extract shows that the law exists to prevent any possible expression of Anti –Semitism, which itself is a product of Christian civilization (see Karen Armstrong- Muhammad- A biography of the Prophet).

As recently as 2007, the European parliament passed legislation that applies across all 27 countries to punish denial of holocaust.

The fear that holocaust denial can result in attitudes that may lead to further hate and bloodshed against Jews deserve a law, but the fear that a whole part of European population can feel alienated and deeply hurt when founder of their religion is ridiculed and abused does not translate into fears of possible bloodshed- leading to a law is obviously sheer hypocrisy. Even if we, for the sake of argument drop the abuse of the Holy Prophet of Islam why is it that no law exists on imprisoning those who deny the brutal slaughter of ten thousand Bosnians Muslims in Europe- is it because they were slaughtered by Christian Serb and were less human than German Jews? Why is it that anti-Semitism is to be feared more than anti-Islamic sentiment in Europe? Are Jewish people more human than Muslims?

Charlie Hebdo finds it rather amusing to satirize religions and religious personalities but it would not dare satirize the holocaust law. Faheem Younas nails this duality and hypocrisy when he writes in Huffington Post on 9th January 2014 “In 2008, Charlie Hebdo fired its famous cartoonists, Siné, on charges of “anti-Semitism.” Siné had merely suggested that President Sarkozy’s son Jean was going to convert to Judaism to marry the heiress of a prosperous appliance chain. And what happened in 2013 when the French Muslims sued Charlie Hebdo for publishing a cover page with the headline, “The Koran is shit – it doesn’t stop bullets?” They were dubbed “Islamists” and given a lecture on free speech”.

Absolute freedoms do not exist. Decency, mutual respect and love for others transcends freedoms and are the ultimate liberators. Vile abuse of others even lesser than sacred personages gives rise to hatred and demeans the freedoms that we all cherish. It deprives us of our humanity. While we can dispute the fact that the denial of holocaust law is based on good intentions as it does stands ground in several world institutions when they were challenged as the Wikipedia extract above shows we know that it has a particular reason and deals with a particularly tragic part of European history and evokes deep fears among the Europeans. Yet this law demonstrates that freedom of speech or expression is not absolute. It comes with responsibilities, an awareness of context and history and sensitivity to groups of people.

The earlier the Europeans start seeing and treating Islam and Muslims as their own and not the “Other”, the earlier they will see the hypocrisy in their defence of freedom of speech launched in the wake of current attack of Charlie Hebdo. Treating Muslims and Islam as an integral part of Europe will help them to see hurtful speech does not qualify as freedom because no one wants to hurt themselves except the insane.

Follow us in Twitter to stay informed about current affairs, human rights, universal brotherhood, Separation of Mosque-Church and State, and much more