Wu Guangqiang

    jw368@163.com

    THE carnage that took place in the heart of Paris in broad daylight on Jan. 7 stunned the world. Several masked gunmen stormed the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people and injuring 11 others, five critically, making it the deadliest French terror attack in 20 years. The dead included 10 Charlie Hebdo editors and the lead cartoonists.

    The world responded with unanimous condemnation of the horrendous terror attack. Under no circumstances can killings of innocent people be justified in any way. As a victim of frequent terror attacks, China always stands with the international community in fighting against terrorism in any form.

    Some of the murderers soon received due punishment. Two suspects (brothers) were killed by French security forces on Jan. 9 in a print work building near Paris. That same day, in another hostage situation at a nearby supermarket, a gunman was killed. A female suspect is still at large, believed to have fled to Syria. Sadly, four hostages died in the firefight. The two attacks are believed to have been linked, and Al-Qaida in Yemen took credit for the attacks.

    It is believed that the magazine was targeted because it angered many Muslims after publishing caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in 2011. French mainstream society, however, has defended the magazine in the name of free speech.

    Freedom of speech is an important value for social progress. A silent and fear-stricken society is hopeless. But does free speech have boundaries and does it apply to everyone? Western politicians have perplexed many around the world with what they do to themselves and to others.

    Westerners recognize boundaries to freedom of speech in their own societies, but they claim that freedom of speech must be absolute and unrestricted in other societies. They have the freedom to criticize or insult other cultures while punishing those with a loose tongue in their own ranks.

    The history of Charlie Hebdo is a telling example. The original name of the magazine was Hara-Kiri. It was banned in 1970 by the French Minister of the Interior because of its spoofs of the popular press’ coverage of a deadly nightclub fire that occurred eight days before the death of the former French president Charles de Gaulle and killed 146 people. In order to sidestep the ban, the magazine decided to change its title to Charlie Hebdo.

    Clearly, if the French authorities had handled the two incidents by the same standard, this tragedy could have been avoided.

    There are more confusing discrepancies between Western definitions of freedom for themselves and for others. In the U.S., “political correctness” virtually bans the use of many words or phrases that offend or upset any group of people in society who are believed to have a disadvantage. “Hate speech” is taboo in America.

    Can Europeans say whatever they want without trouble? France’s most famous butcher Yves-Marie le Bourdonnec was expelled from the French Butchers’ Federation last year because he said that British beef makes the best steaks in the world. The poor chef was accused of being a “detractor of French rearers” and a “paid-up supporter of British farmers.”

    It seems that some Westerns are fond of doing unto others what they don’t to themselves. If what happened to that chef happened in China, Russia or Iran, there would be a synchronized protest in the West against the “violation of human rights.” Ironically, the chef would be safe to make such comments in China.

    While many Westerners are chanting “I’m Charlie” to support free speech, should they learn to “think in others’ shoes” as the English saying goes? Mutual respect is the key to successful intercultural communications.

    If freedom of speech or other individual liberties are abused by a handful of selfish people to hurt other cultures or people, it will do more harm than good to the interests of the majority.

    The serial Paris attacks and consecutive police-targeted attacks in the U.S. have signaled the escalation of terrorist activities in the West. The best strategy to curb it is not eye-for-an-eye revenge, but the eradication of the root cause of hatred.

    (The author is an English tutor and freelance writer.)