The week of 7 January, marking the tenth anniversary of the attacks on the newsroom of Charlie Hebdo, the satiric Parisian weekly, has prompted a flood of commentary and fiery declarations in defence of freedom of speech: There can be no compromises with censors and fundamentalists of all kinds who seek to curtail the right to rebuke, caricature, and ridicule. Such professions of faith can only be welcomed. And yet! This programme can induce only bitterness and scepticism among those who have tried to assert their freedom of speech against official dogma.
It is amusing to note that those who say they are willing to shed their last drop of blood for Charlie are often the same people who, in the days of Covid-19, were extremely spiteful toward vaccine sceptics and critics of government policy. What was not said against these “dangerous conspiracy theorists” who were endangering other people’s lives simply by asking questions! The media did not allow them to have their say and mercilessly suppressed dissenting voices. Incidentally, some of the “offenders” are still in prison, among them Reiner Fuellmich, the German lawyer who was accused without evidence of embezzlement.
Others, such as Dieudonné, the French comedian, were ostracised and banned from the stage on charges of anti-Semitism. Far be it from me to defend this public entertainer or to express any leniency towards anti-Semitism. But there is a paradox, even an enormous contradiction, between the stubborn defence of the right of cartoonists to caricature Mohammed and mock Muslims by treating them as idiots, and the condemnation and performance ban of a comedian who uses his freedom of expression to make fun of Jews. Incidentally, one can imagine the outcry if Charlie Hebdo, instead of making fun of Mohammed, the Pope, or Christians – what he will not let himself be deprived of – had caricatured Judaism and Jews and insulted them in the same way.
What are we to make of the outrage at Elon Musk’s comments attacking the British, who for years kept quiet about the mass rape of young girls by migrants, and what are we to think about the Germans who want to ban one of the country’s largest political parties, Alternative für Deutschland, AfD? Or about the calls to censor “X” because it is too lenient toward conspiracy theories, hate speech, and various anti-Semitic statements?
Yet these virtuous guardians of freedom of speech, who cannot stand Musk’s meddling in European affairs, found nothing to say when von der Leyen blatantly interfered in the Moldovan, Georgian, and Romanian elections last autumn, promising billions of euros for the right choice and having the second round of the Romanian presidential election annulled after the first round was won by a Eurosceptic candidate? Did someone say “freedom of speech?”
What about those who vote for the “wrong” parties in European elections and are immediately labelled right-wing extremists or Nazi sympathisers, excluded from public debate and banned from taxpayer-funded public television channels? And finally, what are we to make of the fact that political opponents such as Mateusz Piskorski, a former member of Poland’s parliament, or activist Janusz Niedzwiecki are imprisoned without investigation or trial, accused of the nonsensical offence of “influencing public opinion” because they hold an opinion that contradicts the official doxa on Ukraine?
Where is the right to freedom of speech? Where are those who – as in the phrase attributed to Voltaire – would be willing to fight for the right to express opinions they do not share?
Either freedom of speech exists, in which case it exists for everyone, or it is restricted, in which case it is restricted for everyone. It cannot be applied à la carte by allowing free speech to some and forbidding it to others. In a balanced society, there cannot be communities that can be mocked without reservation and others that enjoy complete immunity from opposition pamphlets, caricatures, or criticism.
These unequal treatments create social inequalities between different parts of society and lead to resentment among those who are excluded from expressing their opinions. They create unbearable tensions that can lead to hatred and violence, as was the case in France, Germany and the US.
Because there are too many omissions, taboos, and things left unsaid, the impression is created that some people can express themselves more freely than others. •
(Translation Current Concerns)
* Guy Mettan is a journalist and member of the Grand Council of the Canton of Geneva, where he presided in 2010. He worked for “Journal de Genève”, Le Temps stratégique, Bilan, “Le Nouveau Quotidien”, and later as director and editor-in-chief of “Tribune de Genève”. In 1996, he founded the Swiss Press Club, of which he was president and later director from 1998 to 2019.
Our website uses cookies so that we can continually improve the page and provide you with an optimized visitor experience. If you continue reading this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Further information regarding cookies can be found in the data protection note.
If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.