TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Prophet cartoon in European paradox
Many suspect that Macron's stance is inseparable from his reelection bid in 2022.
Change Size
A
French immigrant teenager from Chechen, Russia, beheaded a junior high school teacher, Samuel Paty, on the outskirts of Paris on Oct. 16. A few days earlier, the history teacher gave a freedom of expression lesson using the example of a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad. Two weeks later, three people were stabbed and beheaded inside Notre Dame church in the city of Nice. The culprit was Brahim Aouissaoui, of Tunisian descent.
The cause of the two events was the same: anger ignited by the prophet's caricature.
For Muslims, the figure of the prophet must not be portrayed graphically, let alone articulated with a scent of mockery. However, under the pretext of freedom of expression, the media in several European countries have published cartoons of the prophet, such as the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, in 2005 and the French magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2006 and 2015.
Europe is actually a place where nonviolent civilization has flourished since the traumatic World War II. So why has Europe seen a cycle of violence since the publication of the prophet's caricature in Denmark in 2005?
It looks like there is a paradox between European idealism and its socio-political reality. The acts of violence can be examined from at least three perspectives.
First, from the perspective of European Union ideology. In the articulation of its foreign policy, this regional entity projects European values and ethics throughout the world. As stated in the preamble to the Lisbon Treaty 2009, there are five values (commonly referred to as European ideologies) being promoted: freedom, democracy, equality, humanity and the rule of law.
These values have become the European Union's mantra for domestic and foreign politics. Freedom of expression justifies the publication of the prophet's caricature. However, freedom also contains the element of responsibility if it is seen in a socio-political context, doesn’t it?
Respect for the faith and belief of others is embedded in cultural and religious virtue. If freedom of expression is not synchronized with cultural and religious virtue — in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty — it will provoke anger and violence. While there is an explosion of violent anger due to the cartoons of the prophet, we are in fact witnessing a paradox in carrying out its ideal value at the practical level.
Second, from the perspective of European cultural politics, the issue of immigrants is a real dilemma for Europe. Adhering to human values as mandated by the Lisbon Treaty, France opened its doors to immigrants from North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. However, it is precisely because of this humanitarian policy that Europe is exposed to a difficult socio-political problem: social integration. The issue of immigrants and social integration in France can be referred back to the racial riots that broke out in October 2005.
At a first glance, the incident seemed to be just a matter of struggle for sustenance and employment between local residents and migrants, but it's not that simple. The perpetrators of the riots were unemployed people from North Africa, and predominantly Muslim. Inevitably, the Muslim attributes of the perpetrators of the riots sparked anti-immigrant sentiment, more specifically: anti-Islam.
Anger, riots and violence were then linked to certain ethnicities, races and religions. There was anti-Islamic sentiment. In fact, social cohesion in France is still a problem, far from being resolved.
The world was amazed at the rapid expansion of the European Union after the Cold War. Many scholars of international relations often refer to the EU as a success story of economic integration and legal harmonization.
This can happen because the EU applies the EU Common Policy in the economic and legal fields. However, it is not the case in the social field. An EU observer, Chris Rumford, suspects that the progress of integration in the economy which is driven by a single market is not necessarily followed by social integration (European Cohesion? Contradiction in EU Integration, MacMillan Press, 2000).
It is understandable if social integration in the EU is running slowly because the issue of immigration is closely related to the socio-cultural sentiments of the European community, between local residents and immigrants. France is willing to accept immigrants and refugees because it fits the EU ideal: humanity.
However, these immigrants actually cause social problems. It is in this paradoxical situation that the issue of the Prophet's caricature has risen again. So no doubt, bringing up this sensitive issue again is like throwing oil on the embers of social jealousy.
Third, from the perspective of domestic politics, the issue of immigration in Europe is not merely a socio-economic problem. In recent years, it has penetrated into the realm of domestic politics. The New York Times (Oct. 29) revealed the different attitudes between two French presidents, Jacques Chirac (1995-2007) and Emmanuel Macron (current president), toward the Prophet's caricature.
When the Prophet's caricature was depicted for the first time in 2006, Chirac expressed his regret, saying one of the foundations of the French state is "tolerance and respect for all religions/beliefs". Macron, however, tends to defend the publication of the Prophet's caricature on the ground of freedom of expression.
Many suspect that Macron's stance is inseparable from his reelection bid in 2022. Indeed, in recent years, the European political pendulum has swung to the right. This means that support for right-wing anti-immigrant parties has been growing there. Perhaps Macron's tough stance on immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, was intended to attract votes from supporters of the right.
The political maneuvers of the elites to win votes are legitimate in political contestation. It is equally valid when political elites sympathize with certain groups by being tough on other groups. However, when this tough attitude injures tolerance, diversity, and the beliefs/religions of certain groups, it can spark anger.
Although fury and violence have no room in cultured politics, political attitudes that undermine the religious sensitivity of certain groups, especially by political elites, constitute a paradox of European politics that upholds human values, diversity, freedom and democracy.
***
The writer is a diplomat and doctoral lecturer in international relations, School of Social and Political Sciences, Padjadjaran University, Bandung.
