Just Sayin'

I’m a tad conflicted or maybe I’m vexed, I concede I might even be confused or, shockingly, naïve.

Here I sit writing this blog in a (arguably) democratic country with all the rights and freedoms that entitles me to. I am free to say what I like within reason, write what I think within legal boundaries and do whatever takes my fancy as long as the government and law makers deem it to be ok. Balance that with some of my fellow citizens (of the country and the world) who are less well treated, national security and operational matters being invoked to deny me my right to know some things, including why I might be deemed a security threat, and life is pretty damned good. My main complaint day to day at the moment is disgusting humidity and rising prices.

So why am I vexed?

Freedom of speech is troubling me. I stand with the people who were murdered in Paris last week. I declare solidarity with the staff of Charlie Hebdo and I fall down weeping when I think of those killed in the Hyper Cacher supermarket.

And yet I don’t feel Je Suis Charlie. Mostly.

I have a general philosophy that it is unacceptable to rubbish, make fun of or denigrate someone’s religious beliefs. I am a Christian of the Catholic variety and my faith is rock solid. I have significant concerns about the ‘management’ of the organisation that facilitates the practice of my beliefs but I am grown up enough to separate the two. I know what I believe and it carries me through my life and the way I choose to live it. I constantly question my beliefs and I even sometimes have doubts about God (oh boy do I have questions) BUT I have never lost faith even in the darkest, saddest and cruelest times.

I am amused by atheists (seriously they are hilarious) and I am amazed by how many commentators, Tweeters, Bloggers etc can’t seem to differentiate between religion and individuals. Responsibility always belongs with the person rather than the religion and yet the sweeping generalisers go for the faith rather than the faithful. Odd?

Satire when done well (perhaps code for when I enjoy it) is one of my favorite forms of humour. It pricks pretension, it puts politicians on notice, it can make us think differently, is simply clever and it shatters assumptions.

Satire when done badly is offensive for the sake of it, a play thing for the smart arses and often puerile.

Cartoons can be simply funny and that is their raison d’etre. Others celebrate superheroes and yet others are social commentary. Gary Larson, Michael Leunig, Ron Tanberg, Kathy Wilcox and others can capture a million thoughts in a single frame cartoon.

Charlie Hebdo is not my cup of tea. I suspect it is an equal opportunity offender, it doesn’t care who or what it targets, it exists to take the piss and show how hilarious it is…in its own mind.  It’s a bit tiresome frankly and is probably more at home in an undergraduate magazine than a high street publication.  

Having said that I can see no reason why it ought be banned, even vilified. And I sure as hell see absolutely no justification for ten good, honest people working for the rag to be slaughtered by a pair of murderers defiling the beautiful religion and prophet whose name they dare to proclaim as theirs. These filthy creeps died in shame with the stain of blasphemy to Islam and Muslims which they dared to hijack to commit horror. May they rot wherever they are.

I found the cover of the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo affecting, amusing and moving.  It wasn’t satire, it was just right.  I can’t speak to the suggestion it is offensive for the depiction of the prophet I sense though that he would be shedding a tear for what was done in his name and I find that hard to see as offensive.

Having these conflicting views, I struggle when people talk about freedom of speech because sometimes it allows hatefulness. I am vexed though in that limiting speech allows bad stuff to happen. It turns down the lights a bit, the curtains are drawn a fraction, the shutters start to descend. Governments can get away with all sorts of things, corporates can play merry hell, the extremes on both sides of politics can party with our paranoias and our basic access to information can be diminished to what someone else deems ‘appropriate’. That’s before we consider what we can write, say or seek to debate. Or make fun of.

There is no doubt there’s a lot of hideous stuff on the internet, mindless banality on chat sites, excruciating pomposity on blogs (sorry) and hatefulness in the streets. I just think that I would rather it be there for me to see, challenge, or be offended by than have it hidden away. I have a right to be offended, I have a right to be amused and outraged and challenged for my opinions. The other side to that is that others have a right to do all that to me. Yes, even the haters. I can even cope with the stupidity of an anti vaccination advocate doing speaking engagements, or someone like David Irving sprouting his ridiculous bile and Richard Dawkins is welcome anytime to give me a good laugh and remind me why smiling is so much more preferable to scowling. Of course I'd rather the atheist cult be represented by the brilliant mind of Stephen Fry than the grumpiness and sarcasm of Dawkins. Oh Stephen, such a brain and yet so baffling. 

Often of course (as in the current resurgence of debate in Australia about the loathsome proposed changes to S18c), the argument about freedom if speech has more to do with power than freedoms. Who stands to gain when freedom of speech or the press is limited? Who is left to be 'heard' and who is silenced? This privileged white guy doing a blog will keep plodding along. Despite his hand wringing the hideous Andrew Bolt or the purse lipped Alan Jones and their ilk will be just fine...we ought to worry most about who won't.

And, as always, we just have to be better.