PressEthic

“Jesus is a master of love, and Mohammed a master of hate.” These words were published in an article (translation) by Robert Redeker, on 19th September, in le Figaro, one of France’s largest dailies. The next day, the author, who is also a philosophy teacher, received so many death threats that he and his family had to go into hiding, where they remain today. As the Republic of France is in uproar over this threat to the democratic right to free speech (and rightly so), I wonder: what were editors at le Figaro thinking?

Most of the articles and blogs I have read so far have considered as responsible only the individual who penned the article. As an article published in a national newspaper, however, it is also necessary to hold the editors of le Figaro responsible. And in their case, especially as they have not had to go into hiding, I think that the ethical question is a little more difficult to define.

I will give the editors the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the numerous individuals whose hands this article must have passed through before reaching the paper’s pages did not all share the same extreme views as Redeker. If this is true, however, that would mean that despite recognising the horrendous disrespect and falsity in the diatribe, they decided to go ahead and publish it. My question is: why?

The only conclusion I can come to is that it was done as an explicit assertion of the right to free speech. Nearly a year after the infamous caricatures of Mohammed that caused outrage to some Muslims, and only days after Pope Benedict XVI caused anger by quoting a Byzantine Emperor’s words on the “evil and inhuman” nature of the Prophet Mohammed’s actions, it would seem that le Figaro’s editors decided that they wanted to make a point.

However, there is a fine line between the right to free speech and the right to publish blatant falsity (an argument that has also been put forward by a reader of my previous blog, Any Loose Change?, although in that case I argue for free speech as I do not believe that the apparent falsity is at all blatant).

As Phillippe Boisnard points out in his article "Freedom of Speech [ ], Pseudo-Philosophy [ ], Tick the Box" (Liberté d’expression [ ], pseudo-philosophie [ ], cochez la case de votre choix), there is some irony in the fact that Redeker is being defended “in the name of the sacrosanct freedom of speech” by the same government which recently closed down the website of afro-centrist and anti-semite Kemi Seba, for incitement to racial hatred.

There are few structural differences between the approaches of both protagonists, which makes me wonder whether a plea of incitement to racial and religious hatred [against Redeker] will follow, and the possible condemnation of le Figaro. [my translation]

Unfortunately, I suspect that the extreme reactions of Islamic fundamentalists will overshadow any such criticisms by moderate muslims or anyone else for that matter.

In publishing this article, and giving voice to Redeker’s hate-filled words about Islam in its entirety, the editors at le Figaro made a conscious decision to further polarise an already polarised debate. Overcome by the desire to make a point about free speech, they seem to have forgotten not only their duty to report what they believe to be the truth, but also their duty as a newspaper within a democratic republic to maintain respect for other peoples and religions.