The attack on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo was an assault on democracy, on freedom, and on the ideals that underpin all free societies. As we face the forces of extremism and terror, we must have the courage to speak up for those ideals and to safeguard the right to say what we believe. However, we must also take care to respect the fact that others have the same right.
Charlie Hebdo is not the first publication to have suffered for publishing images which some people perceived as offensive to Islam. In 2005, when I was Danish prime minister, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten provoked international controversy by publishing twelve sketches of the Prophet Mohammad. Some Muslims, in Denmark and abroad, accused Jyllands-Posten of blasphemy for publishing an image of the prophet. Others said that the images were an insult to Islam. There were calls for reprisals against the newspaper, against my government, and against Danish interests abroad.
Our response was founded on the principle that freedom of speech is one of the pillars on which democracy stands, and that if you undermine it, you undermine democracy itself. In free nations, every citizen has the right to say what he or she wants, believe what he or she wants, and criticize or mock what he or she wants — in writing, drawings, or any other form of peaceful expression. Every citizen also has the right to disagree with another’s opinions and to express that disagreement in a peaceful, legal manner.
In 2005, during the “cartoons crisis,” some commentators and politicians in the Muslim world claimed that the right to free speech had been abused and called for an apology and a condemnation of the cartoons, first from Jyllands-Posten, then from my government.
To be sure, freedom of speech is a right that is best used wisely and responsibly. However, we believed, and I still believe, that it would be neither wise nor responsible to attempt to limit it, and that the correct way to respond to a perceived insult is to present a counterargument, not to mount a terrorist attack. In democracies, you can also take the matter to court.
That principle guided us through the 2005 crisis. We did not apologize for an independent newspaper’s editorial decisions, despite great pressure from Muslim groups and governments. Nor did we seek to justify the publication of the cartoons. We simply stood up for freedom of speech.
Despite the horror and anger we feel at the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, we must all hold fast to that principle, because to limit freedom of expression would be to weaken our own societies.
The attacks on the journalists of Charlie Hebdo were disgusting and despicable, but if we respond to them by abridging the freedom on which our societies rest, we will be playing into the murderers’ hands.
Governments must stand up for the freedom of journalists to write what they want and the freedom of every citizen to support or disagree with what they write. Journalists must also continue to write and draw what they believe. Self-censorship would undermine their freedom and encourage further pressure on free speech.
In the past few days, some editors decided that the right response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre was to republish the magazine’s cartoons. Others decided not to. Still others criticized Charlie Hebdo’s actions.
The editors had the right to make those decisions and to express themselves as they saw fit. That is the essence of democracy. The day such decisions are made for fear of reprisal is the day our freedom ends.
For citizens, freedom of speech means having the courage to speak out for what they believe, without resorting to violence — against journalists or against the representatives of any religious belief. To shoot journalists in cold blood for printing a cartoon is a hideous crime, but so is attacking a mosque or assaulting a Muslim because of their faith.
There is a place for debate, even passionate debate, on the deeply moral question of how to balance freedom of speech with respect for religion, but the weapons of this debate should be words, not arms — the keyboard, not the Kalashnikov. Every one of us has the right to our opinion. None of us has the right to kill those with whom we disagree.
The march of millions in Paris on Jan. 11 was a magnificent expression of solidarity and peace. Every leader and legislator should strive to live up to those ideals as he or she responds to the threat of extremism.
The terrorist attacks in Paris will, one hopes, be a game changer in the defense of press freedom, and freedom in general, because millions of people have realized what is at stake. We cannot take freedom of expression for granted. We must stand up for it and defend it, even — and perhaps especially — when we disagree with what is being expressed.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen is a former Danish prime minister and NATO secretary-general and the founder of Rasmussen Global. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS