Je Suis Charlie, matters.

I have come across a number of articles, posts and comments with a “but” clause about Charlie Hebdo. The “but” clause usually claims that Charlie Hebdo went too far, that they provoked Muslims, that they did not do that to others, that it’s equal to racism, sexism and anti-Semitism. The argument reminds me of the “she asked for it” arguments when it comes to rape. If you support Charlie Hebdo, in some quarters you are accused of Islamophobia.

I would like to reduce the issue to its basic element. Blasphemy. The truth is that blasphemy is a capital offense in fourteen Islamic nations. People are convicted to long jail terms and some times executed. Of course, the renegade factions with a nod and an wink from the Salafists export that tradition to places like Paris, Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Charlie Hebdo, confronted the notion of blasphemy as a crime on a global scale.

We found that laws restricting apostasy and blasphemy are most common in the Middle East and North Africa, where 14 of the 20 countries (70%) criminalize blasphemy and 12 of the 20 countries (60%) criminalize apostasy.

Blasphemy is not a small matter. If I was a boutique multiculturalist, I would look away and say: “ Oh, well that is none of my business, let them be quaint, pass the hummus”. But I am not, I truly believe in human rights. I believe that just because you were born in a theocratic nation, it does not mean that you are excluded from certain inalienable rights. Blasphemy laws are not limited to Islamic nations, but I will limit this post to the Islamic nations, this is not a treatise on the subject.

We must confront the nations that consider blasphemy a criminal offense. Fourteen nations are not some fringe of Islam, they are not some downtrodden urban immigrant cluster, they are nations that participate in global economy and in global affairs. We trade with them, we engage, we call some our allies. But, like in the case with Israel, if you criticize the colonial and racist practices of Israel, you get branded as an anti -Semite , if you criticize the core value of Islam against blashpemy and apostasies you get brushed with the Islamophobe brush.

Brushing aside with a “but clause” Charlie Hebdo’s work against blasphemy misses the point of their work. The argument is about the place of blashemy as a crime in the twenty first century. The people who died in Paris, stood up against the violation of the rights of countless people in the Islamic countries who die, or rot in prison because of the laws against blasphemy. They did not provoke just the fringe, they must bring to light with the extreme form of satire, the fact that such laws exist in our times. Laws that criminalize blasphemy and in many cases make it a capital offense.

Hamza Kashgari, was put in prison for blasphemy in Saudi Arabia. He was extradited to Saudi Arabia by bypassing a court injunction, on his way to New Zealand seeking political asylum, from Malaysia— one of the moderate nations. Needles to say, the Malaysian courts did not sanction the extradition, he was extradited all the same.

The three tweets that were considered criminal:

On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.

On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.

On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.

Kashgari was released after writing a letter of apology and silenced forever. Needless to say, since his family was not Saudi, there were countless racist attacks against his origin.

Raif Badawi, was sentenced to ten years and 1,000 lashes to be administered 50 at at time over 20 weeks after Friday prayers in a public square. The crime, blasphemy.

Was Charlie Hebdo extreme in ridiculing and satirizing blasphemy? No. It must be exposed as the antiquated notion and a basic violation of human rights. If you take away one thing from this tragedy, keep in mind the countless people who are criminalized by their countries for violating rules against blasphemy.

The criminalization of blasphemy has no place in our time and it is not something that people of consciense should excuse, or tolerate. That is why I cringe with the “but” statements when it comes to Charlie Hebdo. There are no buts. There is no room for state sanctioned anti-blasphemy laws, or renegade actions that invoke blasphemy as the cause. I don’t frankly give a damn if you are offended.

Islamophobia, racism, anti-Semitism and other bigotries are targeted towards a specific group just because they are part of that group. The case against the criminalization of blasphemy, by the state, or renegades, is a very specific issue with that religion/group. Taking a stance against anti-blasphemy laws and opinions, should not be conflated with other social, cultural or geopolitical issues.

The appearance of representatives from states that actively practice anti-blasphemy laws at the Paris march, was the most insulting to Charlie Hebdo.

The question are do we uphold democratic principles? Or do we close our eyes on the grounds of civility and tolerance when we see theocratic states oppressing their citizens? Do we support those who take to the methods of democracy: free speech, to point out the inexcusable without reservation? There are some issues that should not be nuanced, or compromised, this is one.