Freedom Wall: Rapplers speak out on Charlie Hebdo

(UPDATED) Rappler’s starting a new section called IMHO, short for “in my honest opinion.” We’re collating quick reactions to the massacre at Charlie Hebdo posted by Rappler writers and reporters on their Facebook accounts or blogs. This is over and above the editorial we earlier crafted and the individual illustrations made by Rappler artists. 

These are complemented by a cartoon contribution by Martin Megino, a Hong Kong-based freelance artist/cartoonist who once worked at Agence France-Presse, South China Morning Post, Hongkong Standard, Manila TImes, Philippines Free Press and People’s Journal.

Latest reports say that the two suspects in the Charlie Hebdo attack were killed by elite French police who stormed a printworks and a Jewish supermarket Friday, January 9.

This collection includes 5 posts by our reporter-writers, Patricia Evangelista, Buena Bernal, Natashya Gutierrez, Fritzie Rodriguez, Paterno Esmaquel, and social media producer Marguerite de Leon.

Patricia Evangelista:

The point isn’t so much what they published, or whether we agree with what they published. The point is that they were killed, brutally, bloodily, because they chose to publish.

Go ahead and debate whether the cartoonists were xenophobic or homophobic or offensive or deliberately provocative. Go ahead and ask about self-censorship and hate speech. Go ahead and question whether what Charlie Hebdo published was good journalism or bad. But none of this should detract from the fact that this is an outrage, that this is wrong, that there is no justification for the carnage at Charlie Hebdo, any more than there was justification in the massacre of 58 on a hillside in Sitio Masalay, Ampatuan, Maguindanao.

We are Charlie, not in Charlie Hebdo‘s courage to stand in the front lines of free speech – because that sort of courage takes more than a hashtag – but in the hope that we will continue to try.

Buena Bernal: Who did the blasphemy here? #JeSuisCharlie 

Humor can be used as a tool to open up or deepen much-needed conversations on social, political, and religious issues. Comedy can create dialogue, effective messages, and greater reach.

Truth expressed through ridicule is a craft many a comic and satire writers have mastered, and artistically so. Even as freedom of expression is not absolute, offense to religious sensibilities should not be the sole reason for censorship, much less murder. Speech and expression that may be offensive to some religious sects must still be protected – what comedian Conan O’Brien calls the “right to poke fun at the untouchable and sacred.”

Offensive speech cannot be curtailed simply because it offends. What is sacred to you may not be sacred to others, making it a subjective and biased standard when applied singularly. The terrorizing attack against satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo that killed 12 was supposedly driven by the publication’s blasphemous comedic cartoons.

I like how author Dennis Prager explained the sin of blasphemy, though. It is when you do evil in God’s name. He said this interpretation is closer to how blasphemy is explained in ancient religious text. When evil is perpetrated in God’s name, that is when God feels most betrayed.

If the apparent reasons are true, what a blasphemy the said killing of a dozen people is. It brings to mind a 2006 Charlie Hebdo cartoon cover showing the Muslim prophet Muhammad crying with a French headline that in English reads, “Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists.”

“C’est dur d’etre aimé par des cons (It’s hard to be loved by jerks),” the crying Muhammad cartoon says in what may be an apparent truth expressed through ridicule.

Natashya Gutierrez:

I’ve thought long and hard about the Paris attacks and have this to say: journalism that matters will always upset, anger, frustrate someone. Journalism that matters triggers thoughts, raises questions, challenges ideas, but they also breed hate in others, so much so sometimes that it leads to senseless killings of those who pen them. This is the power of journalism at its core – to trigger emotions so deep that they lead to action.

Freedom of speech is the lifeline by which we journalists live, breathe – and write. We can debate on journalism responsibility or ethics or whether or not we agree with the decision of Charlie Hebdo to publish what they did – but regardless of our opinions on the matter, this does not justify murder. 

What we write may offend you and hurt you but the pen is the only weapon we will ever use to impose ideas on you that you may not agree with.  Any one group, or religion, that seeks to impose its own ideas on the world using violence on the other hand, is never acceptable, never okay. It is barbaric. It is inhuman. It is cruel.

But another thing it is, is a reminder of why we journalists do what we do. It is a reminder of a brotherhood, a commitment to one another to keep writing with courage and conviction, without fear, to honor those whose lives were lost, crusading for the freedom of the press. It is a reminder of the 58 – including the 32 journalists – whose corpses were left to rot in Maguindanao 5 years ago. It is a reminder that there are still many things wrong with this world, and thus being silenced isn’t an option; a reminder to keep writing because our job is far from done. 

It is a journalist’s role to question ideologies – especially when they incite harm and violence. Charlie Hebdo, through satire, criticized extremism of all religions – including Islamist extremism, slamming how, in the name of religion, millions have been slaughtered for disagreeing with their beliefs. The editors weren’t just penning meaningless cartoons for the sake of blasphemy. They were making a statement, a critique. And in the end, Charlie‘s staff was murdered by the exact thing they were criticizing – further proof there IS a need to question such principles.  #jesuischarlie #charliehebdo

Fritzie Rodriguez:  

I think that before we begin discussing other issues surrounding this incident, we should first highlight the fact that people were killed for an idea they expressed. Now this idea may be in contrast with other people’s ideas, but it is an idea that provokes people to perhaps generate more ideas, questions, feelings etc. Ideas should never lead to death.

I think that people should really take the time to examine Charlie, look at the drawings, why are they offensive? I read in a blogpost that this particular Charlie drawing is offensive and homophobic: a Muslim man kissing a man wearing a Charlie shirt; its caption read: “Love is above all.” Now to me, I read this satire not as an attack on homosexuality, but on the negative attitudes toward homosexuality. Those who are offended by it are perhaps those who are homophobic. To me, this does not spread hate for religion. It does not generate hate against LGBTs. What it does is express criticism of how religions view sexuality. That was the message I got from the image. If the message was written straight out, perhaps it wouldn’t be as offensive. But the medium is visual, cartoonists try to bring an issue to the public’s attention, and this was Charlie‘s way of getting that attention.

Going back to the main point: People died and the cause of their death is clear. I think that we all agree that human rights are above everything else, including religion. It is sad that the shooters did their deed in the name of god. Their act, of course, does not represent the entire Muslim population or embody the essence of Islam. I hope that people can also keep an open mind about what Charlie was trying to do, perhaps it did offend a lot of people, but it is not as if they were only ALWAYS doing it to shock.

In the cartoons available, I see that Charlie was trying to start a conversation on topics that many people would rather be mum about. And also, speech should not be countered with silence, but by more speech. I also think that Charlie should not be brought to court for its content because we don’t want to return to a draconian era where we penalize the press, in this case, satire writers/cartoonists. The ones who should be brought to court are the people who murdered innocent people.

Paterno Esmaquel II:

Terrorism should be condemned. But blasphemy shouldn’t be dignified as “freedom of speech.”

Why do we denounce racism? Because it attacks a people’s sense of identity. And for many people, religion points to a much, much, much deeper sense of identity. Blasphemy is racism a thousand times over.

Blasphemy is not an excuse for terrorism. But terrorism is not a justification for blasphemy.

Let us mourn the dead. Let us condemn the terrorists. And that’s it.

Marguerite De Leon:

A lot of good insights have been aired about the Charlie Hebdo killings, and for that I am heartened. What I hope, however, is that the Filipinos who declare “Je suis Charlie” do not see this as a phenomenon removed from their daily lives, an event that happened countless miles away, involving a faith they do not subscribe to, and that their declaration is simply a safe salute or thumbs up on their behalf.

The truth is that censorship and discrimination happens right here in our homeland too, but maybe in more subtle ways, such as people simply being afraid to speak up against the corrupt practices of the local Catholic Church, or dismissing such corrupt practices as something ingrained into our culture, and therefore something we just have to endure or turn a blind eye to.

So, when you declare ‪#‎JeSuisCharlie with much fervor on your social media channels, I hope it is also a promise to look at what is right before you more critically and objectively, and hopefully, to say something about it. – Rappler.com

Tell us what you think in the comments section!