DEBATE: Should there be limits to freedom of speech?

I refuse to be Charlie To be or not to be has been the question in the days following the Charlie Hebdo massacre with lines being drawn either in condemnation of the attack or in support of the attackers’ motive. Just to be clear, I, in no way, condone the ‘revenge’ attacks that led to the death of at least 12 people, including four journalists. However, I also refuse to support mocking and insulting people’s religions and faith in the name of freedom of expression or satire. Just like freedom of speech and expression, satire has unwritten boundaries and limits where it ceases to be positive critic and turns out to be a full blown insult. I find the phrase “I am Charlie” offensive, it carries a line of thought that “I have a right to insult, but you have no right to get offended.” The French weekly magazine had clearly crossed the line multiple times. In what they believed to be their right to make fun of religion, the magazine’s editorial line (or lack of it) unfortunately led to the death of their staff. They ignored the unwritten principle of respect for people’s beliefs and faith even (or especially) when you do not believe in them. They ignored the line of thought by most believers that a true believer is one who is willing to go to the grave in support of his maker. Following the massacre, world leaders and their followers in suite held protests across the world in support of what is now being termed as a show of courage and solidarity. The world marched with banners of “Jesuis Charlie” and a voice of never to back down in the face of cowardly terrorists. But as the dust settles, we should seek ways in which we can maintain peace without necessarily having gun trotting cops outside our buildings and newsrooms. We should seek ways to sustainable peace. We should seek ways to co-exist and tolerate each other. We should ask a few simple questions which we probably already have answers to. “If depicting people’s faiths in certain ways pisses them off, must we do it?” “Should our pursuit for expression and humour lead innocent people to their deaths?” “If I keep the offensive humour and jokes to myself, will I be perceived a coward?” “Does being perceived a coward make you one?” “Is it worth dying for?” Even as a very opinionated newsman, I hold a belief that the only time a journalist should put his life on the line is when he is absolutely sure that he speaks nothing but the truth with facts to back it. Not when dishing out opinions lined with jokes. Freedom (of expression or of speech) doesn’t erase the essence of respect and empathy, freedom doesn’t license one to offend. I refuse to be Charlie. collins.mwai@newtimes.co.rw We need tolerance of opinions If only we can tolerate and respect each other’s opinions, then there is no need to restrict freedom of speech. As humans, naturally, we always have different perceptions and opinions that instigate the choices we make in life. I believe the only sane way we can uphold freedom of speech is by being tolerant and respectful of each other’s opinions and views. People need to understand that debate and criticism is a way of expression, so is satire, and they need to tolerate such platforms regardless of the subject. Whether it’s critiquing policies or debating about some beliefs and norms we need to be able to tolerate each other’s opinions, period! For instance, there have been arguments about the recent killings at Charlie Hebdo. Some people arguing that the cartoonists were irresponsible and they clearly knew what was bound to happen to them. Why would one die for expressing their opinion? Tolerance is all we need for us to live in peace. Charlie Hebdo features sattire, cartoons, reports, polemics, and jokes. And Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the world conforms that Charlie Hebdo has every right to expression in any form. Therefore, the arguments that cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo didn’t act responsibly are weak. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as recognised in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.” Let’s be realistic, if freedom of speech is a right, what’s the point of having restrictions? Just like other freedoms; freedom of speech is not just given on a silver platter, one has to fight for it. Freedom of speech is a natural human right to voice one’s opinion publicly without fear. If there are limits or restrictions on freedom of speech, then censorship kicks in along with its related dangers of harbouring injustices. Censorship is dangerous for any society because it, in most cases, breeds ignorance, misinformation and prevents societies from making informed decisions. It’s important for people to express themselves and this can be attained only if there is freedom of speech with no restrictions. doreen.umutesi@newtimes.co.rw

Lifestyle

DEBATE: Should there be limits to freedom of speech?