Timothy Garton Ash suggests a European media week of solidarity, including republication of Charlie Hebdo cartoons
Timothy Garton AshSource:
Close the entire text of the article here
All the media of Europe should respond to the Islamist terrorist assassinations in Paris by co-ordinated publication next week of selected cartoons from Charlie Hebdo, and a commentary explaining why they are doing this. A week of solidarity, and of liberty. One in which all Europeans, including Muslims, reaffirm the commitment to free speech which alone enables us to combine diversity with freedom.
Otherwise, the assassin's veto will have prevailed. For all the bold editorial statements, sympathy cartoons and moving 'Je suis Charlie' demonstrations, most publications, left alone to decide for themselves, will in future self-censor out of fear. And violent extremists of other persuasions will learn this lesson: if you want to enforce your taboo, go and get a gun.
We do not resolve our differences by violence. We do it by speech. Here is the elementary principle that we, especially those of us who live by the word and image, must unite to defend. You can be furious, rude, sarcastic, offensive - and offended back. There are limits set by law, and you can try to change those laws through parliament. You can demonstrate peacefully, also using civil disobedience. But only the democratic state can legitimately use violence, which we then call force.
There are two sides to this sovereign coin of liberty. On a website dedicated to discussing free speech, I have formulated the principle thus: 'we neither make threats of violence nor accept violent intimidation'. It is the second part which now requires this extraordinary moment of European media solidarity.
I would suggest that the publication or broadcast over this week should include not only a few of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons relating to Muhammad, but also one or two devoted to other subjects, so everyone can see that this was a satirical magazine, offensive to many different kinds of people. That's what satire does. And a commentary should explain why media who would not usually publish or broadcast such satirical cartoons are doing so now. Readers and viewers should be warned in advance that the cartoons will be shown, but the images themselves should not be pixelated or redacted.
Such an action will take a little time to prepare, but will be none the worse for that. Indeed, otherwise the news cycle would move relentlessly on. It would be good if free media around the world joined in the action, but this is above all a moment for Europeans to stand up in solidarity for the freedom of expression which is central to our values and way of life. It is also the freedom upon which most other freedoms depend.
Every newspaper, magazine, website, broadcaster blog or social media page will have its own particular way of commenting, and so it should be, but my draft would go something like this:
"Violence must never be allowed to curb free speech. That is why we, who would not usually publish/broadcast such satirical cartoons, are doing it now, along with other media across Europe. Only such solidarity will show the assassins and would-be assassins that they cannot divide and rule, intimidating media into self-censorship. An attack on one is an attack on all. In this sense, nous sommes tous Charlie.
All that the murderers will have achieved is that those cartoons of Muhammad are now viewed by millions who would never otherwise have seen them. The assassins, not the cartoonists, have brought this upon the image of the Prophet. For there is now an overwhelming, legitimate public interest in knowing what was the ostensible cause of the grotesque, terrorist butchering of the French cartoonists Charb, Cabu, Wolinski and Tignous - whose names will now live through history – and of their colleagues and the police.
This co-ordinated publication is not a gratuitous gesture. It is not anything against Islam. On the contrary, it defends the very conditions in which Muslims in Europe, unlike Christians or atheists in much of the Middle East, can freely express their own deepest beliefs, and challenge those of others. At stake is the future of Europe, and that of liberty. For our living together in freedom depends on this: that the assassin's veto shall not prevail."
Timothy Garton Ash is Professor of European Studies at Oxford University, where he currently leads the freespeechdebate.com project, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is working on a book about free speech.
Karl Marx was right. History DOES repeat itself. It first comes as a tragedy (Churchill) and then repeats itself as a farce (Garton Ash).
(DEDA CVETKO, 18 February 2015 06:56)
I agree with Sreten.
Why do anything if you know it is going to offend someone, even if it is in the name of free speech. Where is the respect? Where is the dignity in using it as a weapon to abuse, insult and hurt others. What good can come out of that?
Don't we all know that action equals a reaction?
Freedom of speech should be treasured like freedom itself.
It seems that freedom of speech is out of control these days.
In the 60's, for instance, it was used to spread love, peace, spiritual enlightenment and equality.
These days it has taken a negative tone.
Free speech, it seems, is today used more and more often as a tool to spread propaganda, disinformation, fear and intolerance. All that is has achieved is that it has created a much more polarised society then, lets say, 5 or 10 years ago.
Today its much more of a them-against-us kind of world.
It maybe time to draw conclusions and have a good think about what free speech should really be about.
Sure it can be used to help topple oppression or to have a say in a democratic society. It can even be used to hurt in a cruel-to-be-kinda way but it should never be used if it can cause conflict of the kind we have seen in Paris this month.
(T, 16 January 2015 23:39)
For god's sake b92, stop publishing shite by Garton Ashe!
Case in point, TGA is a sick hypocrite. If he truely believed in full, no-limits freedom of speech, he would not ask for 'a limited selection' of Charlie Hebdo cartoons, but the most offensive they have produced.
Anyone with a basic understanding of Islam would know that Mohammed is simply not depicted EVER. Not just the fundamentalist fantatics who are prepared to murder journalists, but everywhere. What Charlie Hebdo sought fit to do this is anyone's guess. Arrogance is most likely.
The UK media scene, UNLIKE there rest of Europe, has refuse to publish Charlie Hebdo's moslem baiting cartoons. The US too. Now why is that from the bastions of free speech? TGA hails from the UK but refuses to call for them all to be published. He's a massive hypocrite. You won't see him wearing a t-shirt of Charlie Hebdo's most offensive cartoons in London any time soon.
(EU Dude, 9 January 2015 22:22)
"We do not resolve our differences by violence. We do it by speech. Here is the elementary principle that we, especially those of us who live by the word and image, must unite to defend. You can be furious, rude, sarcastic, offensive - and offended back."
Explanation often given to Muslims . They consider every image or drawing of Prophet Mohamed offensive. But, one has a right to express him/herself even if his/hers publication offend someone.
Critics will then point to case of Ernst Zündel, Holocaust denier who wrote a book "Did six million really die?" in which he questioned number of Nazi victims. For this he was sentenced in several countries, first of all Germany, who convicted him for "dissemination and publishing of the material offensive to identifiable ethnic or racial group" (in this case Jews). Trying to avoid deportation to Germany he moved through several other countries in which he was also sentenced. In Canada he was sentenced for "publication of statement or a tale likely to cause mischief to the public interest in social and racial tolerance, contrary to the Criminal Code."
Muslims like to point to this case today and dispute the statement that one has a right to publish something even if it offends someone.
Depends whom you offend - they say.
Offensive to Muslims - it's free speech.
Offensive to Jews - go to jail.
(Sreten, 9 January 2015 18:44)
For god's sake b92, stop publishing shite by Garton Ashe!
Case in point, TGA is a sick hypocrite. If he truely believed in full, no-limits freedom of speech, he would not ask for 'a limited selection' of Charlie Hebdo cartoons, but the most offensive they have produced.
Anyone with a basic understanding of Islam would know that Mohammed is simply not depicted EVER. Not just the fundamentalist fantatics who are prepared to murder journalists, but everywhere. What Charlie Hebdo sought fit to do this is anyone's guess. Arrogance is most likely.
The UK media scene, UNLIKE there rest of Europe, has refuse to publish Charlie Hebdo's moslem baiting cartoons. The US too. Now why is that from the bastions of free speech? TGA hails from the UK but refuses to call for them all to be published. He's a massive hypocrite. You won't see him wearing a t-shirt of Charlie Hebdo's most offensive cartoons in London any time soon.
(EU Dude, 9 January 2015 22:22)
"We do not resolve our differences by violence. We do it by speech. Here is the elementary principle that we, especially those of us who live by the word and image, must unite to defend. You can be furious, rude, sarcastic, offensive - and offended back."
Explanation often given to Muslims . They consider every image or drawing of Prophet Mohamed offensive. But, one has a right to express him/herself even if his/hers publication offend someone.
Critics will then point to case of Ernst Zündel, Holocaust denier who wrote a book "Did six million really die?" in which he questioned number of Nazi victims. For this he was sentenced in several countries, first of all Germany, who convicted him for "dissemination and publishing of the material offensive to identifiable ethnic or racial group" (in this case Jews). Trying to avoid deportation to Germany he moved through several other countries in which he was also sentenced. In Canada he was sentenced for "publication of statement or a tale likely to cause mischief to the public interest in social and racial tolerance, contrary to the Criminal Code."
Muslims like to point to this case today and dispute the statement that one has a right to publish something even if it offends someone.
Depends whom you offend - they say.
Offensive to Muslims - it's free speech.
Offensive to Jews - go to jail.
(Sreten, 9 January 2015 18:44)
I agree with Sreten.
Why do anything if you know it is going to offend someone, even if it is in the name of free speech. Where is the respect? Where is the dignity in using it as a weapon to abuse, insult and hurt others. What good can come out of that?
Don't we all know that action equals a reaction?
Freedom of speech should be treasured like freedom itself.
It seems that freedom of speech is out of control these days.
In the 60's, for instance, it was used to spread love, peace, spiritual enlightenment and equality.
These days it has taken a negative tone.
Free speech, it seems, is today used more and more often as a tool to spread propaganda, disinformation, fear and intolerance. All that is has achieved is that it has created a much more polarised society then, lets say, 5 or 10 years ago.
Today its much more of a them-against-us kind of world.
It maybe time to draw conclusions and have a good think about what free speech should really be about.
Sure it can be used to help topple oppression or to have a say in a democratic society. It can even be used to hurt in a cruel-to-be-kinda way but it should never be used if it can cause conflict of the kind we have seen in Paris this month.
(T, 16 January 2015 23:39)
Karl Marx was right. History DOES repeat itself. It first comes as a tragedy (Churchill) and then repeats itself as a farce (Garton Ash).
(DEDA CVETKO, 18 February 2015 06:56)
For god's sake b92, stop publishing shite by Garton Ashe!
Case in point, TGA is a sick hypocrite. If he truely believed in full, no-limits freedom of speech, he would not ask for 'a limited selection' of Charlie Hebdo cartoons, but the most offensive they have produced.
Anyone with a basic understanding of Islam would know that Mohammed is simply not depicted EVER. Not just the fundamentalist fantatics who are prepared to murder journalists, but everywhere. What Charlie Hebdo sought fit to do this is anyone's guess. Arrogance is most likely.
The UK media scene, UNLIKE there rest of Europe, has refuse to publish Charlie Hebdo's moslem baiting cartoons. The US too. Now why is that from the bastions of free speech? TGA hails from the UK but refuses to call for them all to be published. He's a massive hypocrite. You won't see him wearing a t-shirt of Charlie Hebdo's most offensive cartoons in London any time soon.
(EU Dude, 9 January 2015 22:22)
I agree with Sreten.
Why do anything if you know it is going to offend someone, even if it is in the name of free speech. Where is the respect? Where is the dignity in using it as a weapon to abuse, insult and hurt others. What good can come out of that?
Don't we all know that action equals a reaction?
Freedom of speech should be treasured like freedom itself.
It seems that freedom of speech is out of control these days.
In the 60's, for instance, it was used to spread love, peace, spiritual enlightenment and equality.
These days it has taken a negative tone.
Free speech, it seems, is today used more and more often as a tool to spread propaganda, disinformation, fear and intolerance. All that is has achieved is that it has created a much more polarised society then, lets say, 5 or 10 years ago.
Today its much more of a them-against-us kind of world.
It maybe time to draw conclusions and have a good think about what free speech should really be about.
Sure it can be used to help topple oppression or to have a say in a democratic society. It can even be used to hurt in a cruel-to-be-kinda way but it should never be used if it can cause conflict of the kind we have seen in Paris this month.
(T, 16 January 2015 23:39)
Karl Marx was right. History DOES repeat itself. It first comes as a tragedy (Churchill) and then repeats itself as a farce (Garton Ash).
(DEDA CVETKO, 18 February 2015 06:56)
"We do not resolve our differences by violence. We do it by speech. Here is the elementary principle that we, especially those of us who live by the word and image, must unite to defend. You can be furious, rude, sarcastic, offensive - and offended back."
Explanation often given to Muslims . They consider every image or drawing of Prophet Mohamed offensive. But, one has a right to express him/herself even if his/hers publication offend someone.
Critics will then point to case of Ernst Zündel, Holocaust denier who wrote a book "Did six million really die?" in which he questioned number of Nazi victims. For this he was sentenced in several countries, first of all Germany, who convicted him for "dissemination and publishing of the material offensive to identifiable ethnic or racial group" (in this case Jews). Trying to avoid deportation to Germany he moved through several other countries in which he was also sentenced. In Canada he was sentenced for "publication of statement or a tale likely to cause mischief to the public interest in social and racial tolerance, contrary to the Criminal Code."
Muslims like to point to this case today and dispute the statement that one has a right to publish something even if it offends someone.
Depends whom you offend - they say.
Offensive to Muslims - it's free speech.
Offensive to Jews - go to jail.
(Sreten, 9 January 2015 18:44)