Nicolas Hindi

In the past week many Lebanese, including friends, have been fervently engaged in debates over the Charlie Hebdo case. Some have seen the shootings as an attack on liberties; others have denounced not only the shooting but also the provocations of the newspaper, posting the hashtag #JeNeSuisPasCharlie. In few other countries was this fundamental divide greater than in our own, reflecting the dual society in which we live. 

I personally was never a fan of Charlie Hebdo’s work. Even though I have very liberal views and at times agreed with the point they were trying to make, I never agreed with the way they made it. I think the images they employed were unnecessarily shocking and disrespectful of others’ beliefs and values and did not facilitate dialogue in any way. 

That said, for me, being Charlie is not about supporting or agreeing with their methods or ideas, it is about defending the fundamental right they have in expressing them. It’s about defending a basic pillar of a free society: freedom of speech. 

The most recurring accusation among the #JeNeSuisPasCharlie crowd is that Charlie Hebdo, hiding behind freedom of speech, deliberately targeted Islam and by doing so insulted the entire Muslim community. That may be true, but is it reason enough to kill it? And by killing it I don’t mean literally. Rather, are the authorities entitled in shutting the newspaper down? I am guessing that my #JeNeSuisPasCharlie friends would indeed have favored such action. That is where I have to disagree. 

First of all, let me clarify to my Muslim friends who think that Charlie Hebdo specifically targets them, that it does not. Indeed, on many occasions it has published satirical drawings and articles criticizing not only Christianity but also Judaism, the French political class, the police and many other institutions. 

The newspaper is actually as harsh, if not more so, against Catholicism, France’s main religion, as it is against Islam. How would a devout French Catholic feel at the sight of drawings depicting masturbating nuns, popes wearing condoms, or even the Virgin Mary giving birth to a pig-nosed Jesus, and God being sodomized by Jesus? 

These images are much more shocking than a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad saying “100 lashes if you are not dead from laughing,” especially when you take into account that Christians consider Jesus to be more than a prophet; they consider him to be the son of God. Yet I don’t see the Jesuits, the Knights of Malta or the Knights Templars bombing, shooting and burning the heretical and profane authors of these blasphemies. 

The point is that it is misleading and inaccurate to describe the magazine as Islamophobic. It is much more an “equal-opportunity offender” put out by a group of secular-minded individuals, many of them atheists. As its late editor Sharb himself has put it, it is an “irresponsible newspaper.” 

Second, shouldn’t atheists feel offended by the widespread hostility toward them that exists in Western and even more in Eastern societies? Atheophobia is widespread and could be considered equally as offensive for an atheist as are caricatures of religious figures for a Muslim, Catholic or Jew. 

Think about the following accusations routinely directed against atheists: that they are morally inferior and evil, that they have rejected God and embraced sin, that they lead meaningless and decadent lives, and that they have a corrupting influence. 

Chances are you have encountered those arguments in one form or another, whether you were a target, the accuser or just a spectator. These concepts and ideas are violently demeaning and insulting to atheists, yet they take root in the sacred texts of the very religions that feel attacked today. 

Here is an example of what the Bible has to say about atheists: “To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good,” from Psalm 14:1-7. 

The Quran also does not spare nonbelievers. Consider for example this verse from Sura 9:29: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah – until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” I could have cited more violent verses directed against “nonbelievers.”

These are the kind of passages that, when interpreted by radical Islamists, give them a perceived moral justification for their abominable acts. Thankfully, there are many Muslim scholars who have interpreted such verses in a subtler way, putting them in a context and taking into account the whole of the Quran and the Hadith. In the same way some Muslims, Christians or Jews feel offended and insulted by Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons, an atheist could likewise feel offended, insulted and even rejected by the views or comments of certain religious persons. 

In the famous case ruling of Handyside vs. United Kingdom in 1976, the European Court of Human Rights extended the definition of freedom of expression this way: “Freedom of expression ... is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population.” 

To anyone who felt insulted by what they perceived as being an abusive form of expression, remember that no matter how shocking it might be, it still falls under the rubric of freedom of speech, as long as it does not jeopardize the safety of others or incite violence. You could choose to confront the underlying idea with any means of expression you want, scorn it, or even turn a blind eye to it, but you cannot prevent it from existing. 

Being Charlie as a Lebanese person is not ridiculous nor is it out of place, as some have said. The Lebanon I dream of is a country of rights and liberties. Being Charlie is in fact standing up for a fundamental human right that any free society should aspire to uphold but that is too often neglected. That right is freedom of speech and it is why #JeSuisCharlie.