What kind of civilization we are?

RIGHT TO offend. His decision to publish a few cartoons of Muhammad to denounce the censorship ignited the debate on the future of freedom of expression. Flemming Rose, head of International of the Jyllands-Posten ' ', the main Danish daily, reflects on the use of satire as response of a healthy civilization in the face of barbarism

Philippe Val, then editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo, could not hide his irritation when, in 2007, on the occasion of the trial against the satirical magazine left by publishing some cartoons of Muhammad, was asked if i had not really been necessary, if this was not a unnecessary provocation and an attack on a weak and oppressed minority. Charlie Hebdo had reproduced a few drawings of the daily Jyllands-Posten , along with other cartoons of the prophet made by its cartoonists, the reaction to the attacks on Danish embassies and the threats to the journal. "What civilization we would be if we could not circumvent, Mofaz and laugh at those who fly planes and trains and mass murder innocent? ", wondered outraged Philippe Val. The question emerges with force after the massacre in the drafting of Charlie Hebdo.

The satire is the response of a healthy civilization to barbarism. Of course that a drawing has never worth the life of a single person. The problem is that there are those who insist on this idea. And how shall we behave toward us, as managers of the word free? How many terrorist threats and actions will have to add to that the fundamentalists of the offense understand that with his defense of the right to not be offended and its absurd matching between bad words and bad deeds you are doing a favor to tyranny?

The massacre of Paris is the tragic culmination, by now, more than 25 years of debate in Europe about the freedom of expression and its limits. Began with Salman Rushdie, which in 1989 had to disappear after that the religious authorities of Iran, through a fatwa (edict), were bidden to all Muslim believers to kill the writer due to a few pages of his novel The Satanic Verses. Since then it has happened one case after another. The majority has revolved around how to deal with Islam in the public sphere in a democracy, but it's not just about Muslims offended. Similar cases have affected Sikh, Hindu, Orthodox Christians, nationalist and all sorts of groups who insist on banning the expression of what they consider offensive.

Both Charlie Hebdo as Jyllands-Posten have been the subject of judicial proceedings. We have both been acquitted in the cases brought against us. In a democracy and the rule of law, will respect the decisions of the courts, even when you can be in disagreement with a judgment. This is one of the ways in which we resolve the conflict. The other way is through the free and open debate. This debate is lost in Denmark and France radical Muslims, but instead of staying faithful to the basic principle of democracy to confront word with word, drawings with drawings and be allowed to speak to the verbal arguments, those who were offended by cause of his god or his prophet clung to the violence or encouraged.

It stated: "After having bowed to fascism, nazism and communism, the world is facing a new totalitarian threat: Islam. We, journalists and intellectuals we appeal to the resistance against this religious totalitarianism and the defense of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values. Recent events related to the publication of cartoons of Mohammed in European newspapers have revealed the need to struggle for these universal values. This fight will not be won by force of arms, but in the ideological field of battle".