Page 78 [78]
OCR
BRIEFE A Different Perspective I would like to suggest a different perspective on the large scale popular demonstrations which followed the killing of journalists at Charlie Hebdo, shoppers at the Kosher food shop and members of the police force. They were indeed popular demonstrations, albeit strongly supported by officialdom... Briefly stated, Mr. Vertlib (ZW Nr. 1/2015) says that those demonstrations were in defense of free speech and are proof that Europeans believe that any limitations imposed on the free expression of opinions will lead quickly to „Barbarei“. The demonstrations were indeed ostensibly in defense of free speech and by extension „les valeurs de la Republique“, and Mr. Vertlib accepts this at face value. The question of what were the real motives behind these demonstrations has of course been hotly debated in France (see for instance, Emmanuel Todd, Qui est Charlie? Sociologie d'une crise religieuse, éd. Seuil 2015). This is admittedly a most difficult question and I would like to address it in a roundabout way by asking what the demonstrations did not purport to say or to achieve... Demonstrations are moved by practical aims or by emotional drives and most often both. Was the achievement of the ideal of free speech, as expressed for instance in the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the USA, a practical aim of the demonstrators? I would very much doubt it. ,,La République“ France, just like Austria, as Mr. Oberschlick pointed out in his comments on Vertlibs article, does in fact have laws limiting free speech. I will cite only three felonies for which prosecutions are not uncommon: « Injure publique raciale nationale ou religieuse » — Loi 1881 : art. 23, 29 alinéa 2, 33 al. 3,5 et6. « Apologie de crime contre ’humanité » — Loi 1881 : art. 23, 24 al. 1 et 5. « Contestation de l’existence de crimes contre Phumanité définis par le statut du tribunal international de Nuremberg de 1945 » — Loi 1881 : art. 23 et 24 bis. One could add to this set of laws the French rules defining vestimentary restrictions in public spaces, especially schools, since one does not need to be a semiologist to know that opinions and beliefs are not solely articulated with words. We heard nor saw objections to ay such laws and restrictions. Other practical aims which might have inspired the demonstrators last January: 78 ZWISCHENWELT -improving public security and anti-terrorist arrangements? -fighting illegal commerce in arms? -modifying economic policies to reduce high unemployment, probably the main cause of disaffection among the French population of African origin? -promoting equality in education to enhance integration of marginalized groups? None of the above surfaced in the streets of France that day. One simple psychological fact seems clear to me and was surely clear to everyone: the demonstrations could not have been aimed directly at the few thousand men and women who are tempted by one or another form of Islamic radicalism. Such demonstrations of the power of the majority can only reinforce this temptation. I conclude that the motives behind the demonstrations were more emotional than practical. An argument one often heard was that mocking Islam was in the French tradition of ‘bouffe curé’. I would consider this a fallacious analogy because this „tradition“ which stretches from the 16" to the 20" century was aimed at an extremely powerful and numerous Catholic Church, something which cannot be said of the generally poor, marginalized and disunited French minority group of Muslim origin. I would suggest that the reference to the tradition of mocking religion, a source of common feeling of national pride, constitutes a strong appeal to emotion. Myself, I would venture one other motive: fear! There is safety, even if only emotional, in numbers. But fear is a bad counsel. After all, the real problem facing France is the cohabitation of various social groups in a country of immigration. The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States enshrines the principle of freedom of speech, which the US laws generally adhere to. So how can co-habitation be tackled? One answer is : with fine-tuned, intuitive selfrestraint, sometimes derisively called political correctness. It is indeed difficult and ludicrous to legislate such matters just as it is to set rules on the type and length of head cover. The 200 members of the US PEN authors’ association who protested the award of the PEN medal to Charlie Hebdo exemplify this attitude, the main principle of which is to imagine how the other feels about my actions. How would Jews, like myself, feel if 4 million people went into How would Jews, like myself, feel if 4 million people went into the streets of France to protect the sacred right to publish cartoons like the one | am inserting, which criticizes Israel while using the image of the blood libel (accusation of Jewish ‘Ritualmord’)? the streets of France to protect the sacred right to publish cartoons like the one I am inserting, which criticizes Israel while using the image of the blood libel (accusation of Jewish ‘Ritualmord’)? John Locke, who was the most likely person to insert the following paragraphs into the Constitutions of Carolina of 1682, expressed the principles of such cohabitation: 108. No person of any other church or profession shall disturb or molest any Religious Assembly. 112. No man shall use any reproachful, reviling, or abusive Language against the Religion of any church or profession, that being the certain way of disturbing the peace, and of hindering the conversion of any to the truth, by them in quarrels and animosities, to the hatred of the Professors and that profession, which otherwise they might be brought to assent to. (Zhe Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina [London 1682] http://www.carolana.com/etc) I would address these words to the 4 million, but not to potential terrorists, who cannot be reasoned with and can only be dealt with by the (hopefully limited) means the State has at its disposal for the insurance of public safety. Daniel Bernstein, Paris, 4.9.2015
