Irreconcilable differences?

In 2005 the publication by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten of several satirical cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad ignited a deadly firestorm around the world, with editors fired, publications shut down, and up to a hundred people killed in riots in Nigeria.

Muslims consider imagery of Muhammad blasphemous. Trying to reconcile this with concepts of freedom of expression and the press is a work in progress.

On Wednesday this week in Paris, the debate turned deadly for the staff of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo (yes, the Charlie is said to be from Peanuts character Charlie Brown). The left-leaning, irreverently anti-religious publication – one of the French papers that reprinted the Danish cartoons – had been sued by Islamic organizations for racism, but its freedoms and satire as a French tradition were defended by top French government officials.

The paper’s office was firebombed in November 2011, around the same time that it came out with an issue featuring a caricature of the Prophet warning, “100 lashes of the whip if you don’t die laughing.”

Cops were posted at the paper’s office for protection after the firebombing. The publication obviously was undeterred.

Charlie Hebdo has undergone several transformations over the years, but not in its irreverent tone. The murder of its editor-in-chief and four prominent cartoonists may silence the paper for now. But going by its record, the paper is likely to rise again, and the massacre may not put an end to its skewering of religious fundamentalism, and its championing of freedom of expression.

*   *   *

Journalists are mourning the deaths and condemning the barbaric murder. We salute those who stick their necks out to test the limits of this freedom and provoke debate on whether there should be limits at all.

We acknowledge that such provocations can create serious problems for governments, private individuals and business enterprises. Even within the media industry, there is no shortage of criticism for colleagues who knowingly put other people’s lives at risk in the name of freedom of expression and the press.

Months after the original publication of the Danish cartoons, with violent protests still continuing, I attended the annual gathering of the World Editors Forum, held in Moscow in June 2006.

A special session was organized to discuss the controversy, with a guest whose identity was withheld until the event actually took place. The guest turned out to be the editor-in-chief himself, who had to travel incognito from Denmark because of the numerous death threats he and his paper had received.

He and his publication weren’t the only ones threatened; similar threats were received by journalists and publications that reproduced the cartoons in other countries. The threats also targeted Danes in general. A Danish editor of another paper, who wasn’t impressed with what he described as the right-wing stance of Jyllands-Posten, sighed that for the first time in his life, he didn’t feel safe traveling outside his country.

The Danish economy was also hit, with certain Islamic states canceling imports from Denmark and other trade deals.

Journalists in principle of course supported freedom of expression. The panel discussion at the editors’ forum was held on a stage with a massive screen displaying all the Danish cartoons as backdrop. I overheard several journalists wondering aloud if we should wear protective vests just in case the stage was bombed. But the venue was packed.

*   *   *

The panel discussion itself was frustrating for anyone who had hoped there would be a meeting of minds among members of the same industry on the clash between religious values and freedom of expression.

A Nigerian editor was furious over the deaths in his country from the rioting triggered by what he considered an irresponsible decision to run the cartoons. But the editor of France’s Le Monde supported the Jyllands-Posten editor in the decision, and even an Islamic journalist from Pakistan sided with them.

Some journalists in the audience who live in countries facing religious extremist violence said they did not want to put more lives at risk by publishing the cartoons.

In the United States – the top target of every self-respecting religious extremist – only smaller papers ran the cartoons.

In the Philippines, national newspapers including The STAR set up online links to the cartoons but did not reproduce them. Maybe we have a more conservative media culture. Or maybe our society does not strongly associate violent extremism with religion. Even when gunmen are shouting “Allahu akbar!” while staging attacks on Catholic targets here, the problem is still seen largely as one of poverty and lack of education and legitimate livelihood opportunities, compounded by lousy law enforcement.

We do laugh along with satirists in the free world who poke fun at all faiths, governments, and prominent (or notorious) personalities.

The North Koreans at least have shown their low tolerance for insults to their supreme leader merely by hacking into Sony Pictures (strongly denied by Pyongyang). “The Interview” is hilarious, but you can understand why a dictator who portrays himself to his oppressed people as something akin to divinity would be offended. I’m not sure how other heads of government would react to a similar film portrayal of themselves – but then no other head of government comes close to the weirdo factor of Kim Jong-un.

In free societies, Jesus Christ has been subjected to every imaginable blasphemy including fictional depictions in hard-core porn. And there are enough Jewish jokes to fill a national library. Somehow, jokes about Islam and the Prophet are the ones that tend to attract violent – and deadly – reactions.

Laughter, The Reader’s Digest likes to point out, is the best medicine. I have met enough Muslims to say with certainty that a healthy sense of humor – one that can tolerate even the Borat jokes (and actually find them funny) – is not unique to Christians, Jews and Hindus in democratic societies.

Are satire, sense of humor and freedom of expression incompatible with Islamic sensitivities? This is something that is best resolved among Muslims themselves.

While the debate goes on, I don’t think journalists will stop testing the limits of freedom of expression.