A Global Mandate
Muslim countries have sought to enforce the ban on blasphemy beyond their borders to cover the entire world. In 2008, the United Nations General Assembly voted 85-50 (with 42 abstentions) to make blasphemy a crime. The measure was originally introduced by Pakistan in 1999 and has continued to be brought up by the 57 Muslim countries that make up the OIC, Organization of Islamic Conference. When the vote was brought up again in 2010, the margin of passage was smaller, 76-64 with 42 abstentions.
In 2011, the OIC attempted to push forward an alternate version of the resolution to overcome the objections of the United States and other western countries that felt the law trampled on basic rights of free speech. The US’s Obama Administration worked hard at developing Resolution 16/18, which sought to criminalize the act of stereotyping or discriminating against people based on religion, rather than the pillorying of the religion itself.
The terms “stereotyping” and “incitement to … hostility or violence” that are used throughout the resolution have been called “vague” and “problematic”. The mandate of “[a]dopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief” is confusing as to whether it bans the direct call to incite violence, or for doing anything that could incite violence. For example, if the cartoons made in Charlie Hebdo did not call for violence against a group, but the negative stereotyping could incite people to violence, would that be considered illegal? Would it be considered illegal if the stereotyping brought violence against the targeted group only, or even if it brought violence against Charlie Hebdo themselves for publishing the piece? If each instance was considered illegal, it would likely have direct and significant negative impact on the freedom of speech and press for everyone.
The Individual
According to many Muslim clerics, Islamic law mandates that Muslims take actions against people who slander the prophet Mohammed. As seen above, Sharia law has put such laws into effect in several Islamic countries, and the 57 OIC member countries have been aggressively advancing the case for blasphemy laws everywhere.
While Resolution 16/18 passed without a vote in 2011, most westerners do not know of its existence and consider the freedom of speech, thought, expression and press to be basic fundamental rights that they have in their countries. It is possible that the journalists at Charlie Hebdo did not know about Resolution 16/18. They knew that their articles and pictures upset many people of different faiths; that was the essence of why they made them, and they considered it their right to do so under the country’s freedoms of speech and press. They experienced the wrath of Muslims when their offices were firebombed in 2011 after posting a caricature of Mohammed. However, did they consider those cartoons illegal because it lampooned Mohammed which could have incited people to violence?
The French Muslims who came to the offices of Charlie Hebdo to kill the staff may or may not have known about Resolution 16/18. They did know that their prophet was insulted and no action by the French government was being taken against the perpetrators. Any Muslim who believes that blasphemers should be punished are obligated to take action. They took matters into their own hands, shouting while they shot the journalists “Hey! We avenged the Prophet Muhammad! We killed Charlie Hebdo.” They viewed their actions as targeted vigilante justice against evil perpetrators, not terrorism.
If France and the western world are concerned about terrorism that strikes at random individuals, they should put “Paris Est Juif” on the Arc de Triomphe instead of “Charlie” in support of the innocent Jews who were massacred while shopping for their Sabbath meals.