LETTER: I refer to Dr Kaleem Alam's "Muslims should take legal path", where he refers to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's statement on the Charlie Hebdo republication of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) drawings on Sept 2 that indeed stands in contrast to French President, Emmanuel Macron.
The latter's defence of France's so-called uncompromising liberalism - as exemplified by Charlie Hebdo's republication of derogatory drawings of the Prophet - as a lifeblood of its democracy stirred controversy even within the country and beyond the Muslim world.
Let the French President be reminded that it was countryman Jean-François Flauss, a Professor at the University of Paris II (Pantheon-Assas), who wrote in 2009 - years before Macron was elected president in 2017 - that European jurisprudence very clearly condemns any form of hate speech in principle. [See Flauss, Jean-François (2009) "The European Court of Human Rights and the Freedom of Expression," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 84 : Iss. 3 , Article 3. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol84/iss3/3]
In the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case of Jersild v. Denmark (1995), the court affirmed that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (on freedom of expression) should not be interpreted in such a way as to limit, derogate from or destroy the right to protection against racial discrimination under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The case may be decided 25 years ago, but in later years the court has continued to explain that "remarks aimed at inciting racial hatred in society or propagating the idea of a superior race can not claim any protection under Article 10 of ECHR; that:
"...expressions that seek to spread, incite or justify hatred based on intolerance, including religious intolerance, do not enjoy the protection afforded by the Article; and finally that the protection granted by Article 10 does not apply to "concrete words constituting hate speech that might be offensive to individuals or groups."'
Hate speech is not limited solely to the domain of racial or religious discrimination. It was defined way back in 1997 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to encompass "all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination, and hostility against minorities, migrants, and people of immigrant origin."
[See The Committee of Ministers to Member States on "Hate Speech" (1997). Available at http://www.coe.az/pfddoc/committeeofministers/Rec No. R (97) 20 (e).pdf]
An attack against a religious group is incompatible with the values proclaimed and protected by the ECHR. Thus, in the case of Norwood v. United Kingdom (2004) where a British citizen displayed a poster in his house window with the following text: "Islam out of Britain - Protect the British People" and accompanied by a photo of the World Trade Center in flames, the court decided that the words qualified as religious hate speech.
According to the court, the words and images appearing on the poster constituted an attack against all Muslims in the UK.
Then, less than three weeks ago on Oct 29, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) found the UK's Labour party broke equalities law including harassment and discrimination over antisemitism in the party.
In a long-awaited report, the EHRC said there were "serious failings in the Labour party leadership in addressing antisemitism and an inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints".
Labour was cited for "political interference in the handling of antisemitism complaints". A complaint made in April 2018 about Jeremy Corbyn, who had previously posted a statement in support of an artist who had produced an antisemitic mural in the East End of London, was cited as an example of "interference at various stages throughout the complaint-handling process, including in decisions on whether to investigate and whether to suspend."
Corbyn initially explained his support against removing the mural on grounds of freedom of speech - much like Macron defence of Charlie Hebdo.
But, when his own Labour MP complained that the mural "was offensive, used antisemitic imagery, which has no place in our society, and it is right that it was removed", Corbyn later declared his "sincere regret" that he did not look more closely at the image he was commenting on.
So, I agree with Dr Kaleem that French Muslims and organisations must join hands with Christian organisations against Charlie Hebdo for blasphemy and take the legal path. A path similarly taken by the Jews and Christians.
HAFIZ HASSAN
Bukit Baru, Melaka
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times