Let me begin by saying that I am against any act of violence and firmly stand against terrorism in all its forms. What happened in France on the 16th of October 2020 is indefensible.
A 47-year-old teacher Samuel Paty showed children in his class two caricatures of Prophet Mohammed PBUH published by the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo. The very same images that sparked the 2015 incident, where terrorists murdered 11 staff members of the magazine and six bystanders in Paris. After some parents protested this incident and called for Paty to be fired from the school, a terrorist beheaded the teacher and posted it on social media before the authorities shot him dead. It goes without saying that this is considered an act of terrorism, and we as Muslims condemn this heinous crime. It stands against everything that Islam represents.
In reaction, the President of France Emanuel Macron called the incident an attack on the republic and their secular system, and projected the caricatures on government buildings under tight security. Two Muslim women have been stabbed in Paris since then.
The caricatures in question were designed particularly to cause offense and hurt the Muslim population, and depict racist, bigoted stereotypes of Muslims. The popular opinion in Europe has been that the caricatures represent freedom of speech, and that making fun of the Prophet PBUH is permitted under such freedom. But this incident is marred with controversy because of the double-standards that can make this defense seem discriminatory and prejudiced.
For example, to become more inclusive of marginalized groups, European countries have established official bodies to ensure certain words that used to be commonly used are not spoken or published anymore (‘political correctness’). Anti-Semitism, denial of the holocaust, or hate speech towards LGBTQ are also frowned upon. In 1988, when Salman Rushdie published his book The Satanic Verses, the book which sparked protests in many Muslim countries, the English court did not deem the work as offensive. But in that same period, it deemed an 18-minute video that was against the church offensive and banned it from distribution. In 2005 France's Catholic Church won a court injunction to ban a clothing advertisement based on da Vinci's The Last Supper fresco. The court's judge ruled that the display was "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs" The advertisement featured a female version of the fresco, which consisted of a female Christ. French lawyer Thierry Massis said "When you trivialize the founding acts of a religion, when you touch on sacred things, you create an unbearable moral violence which is a danger to our children. Tomorrow, Christ on the cross will be selling socks."
Any kind of freedom has to have limits. Without limits it would infringe on other people's rights. No freedom is absolute. If I am free to play music in my own house, there is a limit to how loud I can play. The moment I cause discomfort to my neighbors, I am infringing on their rights.
Lawyers should advocate for laws to ensure that rights are established to protect all religions and faiths, to spare people's feelings from hate. We need to create a world where we all live in peace, to learn to co-exist, and help each other to live without hate in our hearts.
Sources:
BBC NEWS- French court bans Christ advert
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4337031.stm
Michigan Journal of International Law – Volume 32 Issue 4 - 2011
Islam in the Secular Nomos of the European Court of Human Rights - Peter G. Danchin
University of Maryland School of Law
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=mjil