Je Suis Humain: Responsible Free Speech in The Shadow of The Charlie Hebdo Murders

306 Hawthorn Road,
Caulfield S. Vic. 3162

T (61-3) 9272 5594
E info@ohpi.org.au
W: www.ohpi.org.au
Je Suis Humain
Responsible free speech in the shadow of the
Charlie Hebdo murders
Copyright 2015 Online Hate Prevention Institute

Report: IR15-1
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Dr Andre Oboler
By Andre Oboler
Published in Melbourne by:

Online Hate Prevention Institute
306 Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield South, Vic, 3162
Ph: (03) 9272 5594
E-mail: ohpi@ohpi.org.au
Website: http://www.ohpi.org.au
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry

Oboler, Andre, author.
Je Suis Humain: Responsible free speech in the shadow of the Charlie Hebdo murders / by
Andre Oboler.
ISBN: 9780987429469 (ebook)
Freedom of speech.
Online hate speech.
Internet -- Moral and ethical aspects.
2015 Online Hate Prevention Institute

This publication is copyright. Other than for the purpose of and subject to the conditions
prescribed under the Copyright Act, no part of this publication may in any form or by any
means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission.
Enquires should be addressed to the publishers.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
License. This notice serves as prior written permission to the extent covered by the license.
Page |i
About the Online Hate Prevention Institute

The Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI) is an Australian Charity on the Australian Governments
Register of Harm Prevention Charities. We aim to be a world leader in combating online hate and a
critical partner who works with key stakeholders to improve the prevention and, mitigation of, and
responses to, online hate. Ultimately, OHPI seeks to facilitate a change in online culture so that hate
in all its forms becomes as socially unacceptable online as it is in real life.
OHPI is a charity that accepts public donations; within Australia donations over two dollars are tax
deductible. For details, please see http://www.ohpi.org.au/donate
About the Author, Dr Andre Oboler

Dr Oboler is CEO of the Online Hate Prevention Institute. He has worked at the leading edge of
international efforts to combat online hate in social media since 2008, and has been active in the
broader field of combating internet based hate since 2004.
Dr Oboler is internationally recognised as a leading expert in the field of online hate. He has
presented testimony to the Italian Parliament and has appeared on national television in Australia,
Italy and Israel. He is co-chair of the Online Antisemitism Working Group of the Global Forum to
Combat Antisemitism and has served as an expert to the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition to Combat
Antisemitism. He is a Distinguished Visitor for the IEEE Computer Society.
Dr Oboler holds a PhD in Computer Science from Lancaster University (UK) and a Juris Doctor from
Monash University (Australia). He has also completed a Post-Doctoral Fellowship at Bar-Ilan
University (Israel). He is a Senior Member of the IEEE and a member of the IEEE Computer Society
and the IEEE Society for the Social Implications of Technology.
The Cover Art

The cover is an image created by OHPI staff. The pencils with different external colours are all the
same colour on the inside, representing our common humanity and shared fundamental values. The
two pencils on the right may appear separate from the rest, but despite this, we must recognise that
all five are really together in the same box. The box itself represents our common humanity. The
ruler in the background can be used to guide the pencils. The ruler can also be used to prevent the
creativity of the pencils moving beyond a certain boundary. The ruler is a symbol for the social
contract which limits our individual freedoms, but does so in order to ensure we can all live together
in society.
P a g e | ii
Limited License to Reproduce this Report

If you find this report useful, and wish to share it with other, please do so in line with the license
arrangements described below. Please also consider supporting OHPI work like this is only
possible as a result of donations to OHPI.
This report has been released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0
Unported License. This means you are welcome to upload copies of this report to other sites, or to
make hard copies of the report, provided the report is reproduced in full and your use is not for a
commercial purpose.
If you would like to reproduce part of the report in isolation, for example in briefing papers or study
material freely provided to students, please contact OHPI or Dr Andre Oboler and provide details of
which sections you would like and for what purpose.
If you would like to reproduce some or all of this report commercially, for example as part of a set of
material that will be sold, please contact OHPI or Dr Andre Oboler.
Acknowledgements
The production of this report was facilitated by the staff of the Online Hate Prevention Institute.
Their efforts in research, editing, and data collection are a significant part of the end result. Thank
you also to Dr Colin Campbell, Chair of the Online Hate Prevention Institutes International Advisory
Board, for his advice and assistance in editing this report. The input from the OHPI Board of Directors
is also greatly appreciated.
OHPI also thanks our donors for their assistance in making work like this possible. We would also like
to acknowledge the support we receive from our professional advisers Logicca Chartered
Accountants and Frankel Lawyers. Andre Oboler thanks the Directors of OHPI for the important role
they play, as volunteers, in overseeing and helping to develop this important charity.
Online hate is a growing threat to society.

At OHPI we can do something about this growing climate of hate, but
we need your support to make our work possible.
http://ohpi.org.au/donate/
P a g e | iii
Dedication
To those that were murdered in the terror attacks in France in January 2015.
Frdric Boisseau, Philippe Braham, Franck Brinsolaro, Jean Cabut, Elsa Cayat, Stphane Charb
Charbonnier, Yohan Cohen, Yoav Hattab, Philippe Honor, Clarissa Jean-Philippe, Bernard Maris,
Ahmed Merabet, Mustapha Ourrad, Michel Renaud, Franois-Michel Saada, Bernard Tignous
Verlhac, and Georges Wolinski.
They will be remembered.
P a g e | iv
Executive Summary
The attacks in January 2015 in France on the satirical publication Charlie Hebdo, a police officer, and
a kosher supermarket, have sparked significant discussion. That discussion touches on issues of
antisemitism, freedom of speech and expression, a free press, freedom from persecution, human
dignity, bigotry, religion, blasphemy, self-censorship, and government censorship. Social media is
enabling the masses to come together, to mourn, and to debate the placement of the often fine line
between freedom of expression and respect for human dignity.
This report highlights the antisemitic aspects of the attacks in France and the need for a greater
response, by both governments and society, to a problem which serves as a significant predictor of a
breakdown of civil rights in society. Such breakdowns make incidents like those in France far more
likely. Rising antisemitism in Europe, particularly within the Muslim community, has not been
sufficiently tackled in recent years and this puts society as a whole at risk.
The report also explores the placement of the line between freedom of speech and protection of
human dignity with respect to religion in the French tradition, and the quite different approach
which is appropriate in a country, such as Australia, which celebrates diversity. The boundary when
it comes to the criticism of Islam which, like criticism of any other belief or philosophy must be
permitted in a free society, and the promotion of hate against people who are Muslim, which is a
form of hate speech violating basic human rights, is considered. This is done both in general and in
the context of cartoons of Mohammed.
The report also discusses the nature of the Charlie Hebdo publication, which took pride in being
"dumb and nasty. Solidarity against terrorism should not extend to beautifying the messages
expressed in the publications pages. Its evangelical secularism and attacks on religion follow a
particular French tradition and are out of context in other cultures. We contrast the medias
response in France with that outside of France. In France the media celebrated both Charlie Hebdo
and the message it promoted. By contrast, outside of France, much of the media promoted the
concept of free speech, but not the content of Charlie Hebdo itself. In social media a variety of
hashtags went viral from Je Suis Charlie, the French Muslims response Je Suis Ahmed, solidarity
with the Jewish community through Je suis Juif, and the inclusive German response of Je Suis
Humain. While all mourn the deaths of those killed, different values led to different messages
gaining traction on social media in different communities. There is also a warning sign in the rise of
the Je Suis Kouachi hashtag.
The report considers where the line should be drawn, in the Australian context, when it comes to
the choice between freedom of expression and the prevention of attacks on human dignity. Our
ultimate view is that the situation here is very different to that in France. We believe in
multiculturalism, and that expressions of religion can legitimately be part of ones self-identity, and
should not need to be suppressed in public. We believe that speech attacking a person or groups
identity in a manner that is not trivial but is rather profound, should be unlawful. We believe speech
which impacts on the public good of a socially cohesive society should be unlawful. We also believe
that comments on a matter of public interest should be exempt from censorship provided they are
made reasonably and in good faith.
Page |v
We know where the lines are between freedom of speech and the protection of human dignity in
this country. We had that debate most extensively in 2014. We argue its time those same standards
apply to attacks on groups defined by their religion. Such a move would be in keeping with
Australias commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified over
24 years ago. The urgency in addressing this gap may have changed, but our values have not. Its
time we live by our values, together, in a multicultural society that respects both freedom of
expression and the value of human dignity and personal identity.
Dr Andre Oboler
Melbourne, January 16, 2015
P a g e | vi
Summary of Recommendations
The following recommendations can be found in this report:
Number
1
Page
4
10
13
13
14
14
16
10
16
11
18
12
18
13
21
14
28
15
29
16
31
Recommendation
Greater high level Government attention is needed on the problem of antisemitism.
States are urged to ensure appropriate high level representation at the Global
Forum to Combat Antisemitism which will take place in Jerusalem in May 2015.
Tackling online antisemitism should be a part of tackling the problem of selfradicalisation through social media.
The concept of Lacit, especially in its extreme view which is intolerant of religion, is
not something that should be imported into Australia.
The media should not, as an act of symbolism, re-print content which breaches their
usual editorial standards.
Social media users should think carefully about the symbolism of campaigns such as
Je Suis Charlie and who such campaigns exclude. More universal messages, such as
Je Suis Humain should be preferred.
Accounts promoting terrorism should be immediately closed by social media
companies. Hosting providers, including blogging platforms, should immediately
close accounts promoting terrorism.
The standard of what constitutes offence in Australia, both in terms of generally
accepted community standards for classification, and in terms of offensiveness at
law in a discrimination context, should not change.
Muslim leaders should clearly differentiate between content Islam may find
offensive, and anti-Muslim content which society as whole should find offensive.
Public condemnation should be reserved for the latter.
Facebook and other social media platforms should prohibit gratuitously offensive
images of religious, national or ethnic symbols. Under this policy social media
companies should prohibit gratuitously offensive images of Mohammed.
Facebook and other social media companies should prohibit all hate speech directed
against people who are Muslim.
A cartoon should not be considered hate speech merely because it depicts
Mohammed.
Cartoons portraying Muslims through negative stereotypes, using Mohammed to
symbolise all Muslims, should be considered a form of hate speech.
Social media platform providers should not treat content which is merely critical of
the ideas of Islam, but does not extend to inciting hate against all people who are
Muslim, as hate speech. Platform providers should not treat mere criticism of what
is presented as Islamic practise by various Muslim countries as hate speech.
That content be considered anti-Muslim hate speech when, for example, it:
dehumanises Muslims; stereo-types all Muslims, for example as terrorists; advocates
the exclusion of Muslims from society, such as content claiming Muslims cant be a
part of society; denies human rights to Muslims; holds all Muslims responsible for
the acts of extremists; or applies a double standard to Muslim communities or
Muslim countries, for example making demands which would not be made of other
countries in similar circumstances.
That the divisiveness of Charlie Hebdo be recognised, and that it not be made into a
symbol of the ideal of free speech.
The Australian Parliament should consider adding the phrase religious belief or
activity to Section 18C(1)(b) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
P a g e | vii
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ iv
Summary of Recommendations............................................................................................................. vi
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
The background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Attacking the Jews: Antisemitisms role in the attacks........................................................................... 2
Antisemitism as a step to radicalisation ................................................................................................. 4
The French Medias response to the attacks .......................................................................................... 6
French history of political satire ............................................................................................................. 6
Charlie Hebdo and the concept of lacit ............................................................................................... 7
The response of the media outside France ............................................................................................ 8
The Je Suis meme in social media ..................................................................................................... 10
The Islamic view of drawing Mohammed ............................................................................................. 13
Facebooks response ............................................................................................................................. 14
When is a cartoon of Mohammed hate speech? .................................................................................. 16
The outpouring of cartoons on Facebook............................................................................................. 20
Does making Charlie Hebdo a martyr champion free speech? ............................................................ 29
The Australian debate over S18C of the RDA ....................................................................................... 30
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 32
Page |1
Introduction
The Charlie Hebdo attack in France has sparked a significant amount of debate in social media. The
debate is framed in various ways, but related to freedom of speech and expression, a free press,
freedom from persecution, human dignity, bigotry, religion, blasphemy, self-censorship, and
government censorship. Much of the discussion has been well thought out, polite and informative.
This is social media at its best, contributing to real debate on fundamental issues for society. This
debate has brought people together across countries, cultures and religions, perhaps not to agree,
but at least to engage in discussion. At the same time, some have used the incident as a pretext for
attacking not only the Muslim community, but also laws and rules prohibiting hate speech.
One result of the current debate is that a number of fundamental misconceptions and blind spots in
the discussion on freedom of speech and its limitations have been exposed, and these require
refutation. A number of excellent points and analogies have also been made, and should be shared.
Context around the current events is also important. This article seeks to do all three of these things,
as well as providing some additional commentary, and clarifying the Online Hate Prevention
Institutes position on some of these matters.
The background
Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical newspaper, published weekly, and known for being highly
controversial. Hebdo means weekly in French, and Charlie is both an allusion to Charlie Brown and
an inside joke about former French President Charles de Gaulle. The paper was renamed Charlie
Hebdo to get around a French Government ban in response to the papers treatment of the death of
President Charles de Gaulle in 1970. The papers slogan "dumb and nasty" (in French "bte et
mchant") has become a phrase in everyday French, and comes from a letter of complaint sent to
the team behind Charlie Hebdo by an early reader of their Monthly magazine in the 1960s1. The
paper was out of circulation from 1982 until it was revived in 1992.2
On February 9 2006, Charlie Hebdo published an issue focused on cartoons of the Prophet
Mohammed. This followed controversy over the Danish Cartoons of Mohammed published in
September 2005, and which led to protests and riots around the world. The Danish cartoons were
republished in the 9 February 2006 edition of Charlie Hebdo, along with additional cartoons.3 The
justification was a defence of freedom of expression after the editor of another French publication
was fired for republishing the cartoons.4 Charlie Hebdo was taken to court, and the court ruled that,
1
Elizabeth Hagedorn, Charlie Hebdo And Islam: The History Of Its Satire, Newsy, 7 January 2015
<http://www.newsy.com/videos/charlie-hebdo-and-islam-the-history-of-its-satire/>.
Libby Nelson, Charlie Hebdo: its history, humor, and controversies, explained, Vox, 7 January 2015
<http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7511001/charlie-hebdo-attack-paris/in/7271890>.
Charlie Hebdo Paris shooting: How criticisms, satires of Islam have sparked violence, CBC News,
7 January 2015 <http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/charlie-hebdo-paris-shooting-how-criticisms-satires-ofislam-have-sparked-violence-1.2892571>.
Lymbko Eko and Dan Berkowitz, Le Monde, French Secular Republicanism and `The Mohammed Cartoons
Affair: Journalistic `Re-Presentation of the Sacred Right to Offend, International Communication Gazette,
April 2009, Vol.71(3) 181-202,
<http://www.researchgate.net/publication/245518165_Le_Monde_French_Secular_Republicanism_and_Th
e_Mohammed_Cartoons_Affair%27Journalistic_RePresentation%27_of_the_Sacred_Right_to_Offend>.
Page |2
The acceptable limits of freedom of expression have not been overstepped, with the contentious
pictures participating in a public debate of general interest".5 The Court also said that even if the
cartoons were shocking or hurting for Muslims, there is no deliberate desire to offend them.6
The 3 November 2011 issue of Charlie Hebdo, titled Charia Hebdo, was to feature Muhammad as
guest-editor. Shortly before release, the Charlie Hebdo offices were firebombed.7 Staff of Charlie
Hebdo were put under police protection in response to further threats. In 2012 a man was arrested
for calling for the editor of Charlie Hebdo to be beheaded, and in 2013 the same editor was placed
on a hit list by Al-Qaeda.8
The attack on the Charlie Hebdo office on Wednesday January 7th 2015 left 12 people dead. On
leaving the scene of the crime the gun men said we have avenged the Prophet Muhammad, we
killed Charlie Hebdo.9 The next day a policewoman was killed near a Jewish school and centre. The
day after that, the gunman who killed the policewoman, and who was linked to the Charlie Hebdo
attackers, took people hostage in a kosher supermarket in Paris. Four French Jews and the attacker
died in the incident.10 The terrorist attacks have been condemned both in France and internationally,
including by Muslim leaders.11 Around four million people marched in various parts of France in a
demonstration against the attacks, the largest demonstration since the liberation of Paris from the
Nazis at the end of World War II.12
Attacking the Jews: Antisemitisms role in the attacks

The victims of the Charlie Hebdo attack were murdered because terrorists decided that the
publication of cartoons was an action worthy of death. No act of publication justifies such attacks.
Targeting of the Jews of Paris, however, lacked any reason at all; any reason, that is, except for the
mere fact that they were Jews, and the extremists believed Jews should die.
On the morning of Thursday January 8th Amedy Coulibaly killed police woman Clarissa Jean-Philippe
5
Thierry Leveque, French court clears weekly in Mohammed cartoon row, Reuters, 22 March 2007
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/22/industry-france-cartoons-trial-dc-idUSL2212067120070322>.
6
Ibid.
7
French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo attacked in Paris, BBC News, 2 November 2011
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-15550350>.
8
Lizzy Deardan, Charlie Hebdo attack victims: Tributes paid to the 10 journalists killed by gunmen in Paris,
The Independent, 7 January 2015 <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdoattack-victims-tributes-paid-to-10-journalists-killed-by-gunmen-in-paris-9963303.html>; Dennis Lynch,
Al Qaeda Hit List Names: Charlie Hebdo's Stphane Charbonnier, Salman Rushdie Among Global Targets,
International Business Times, 9 January 2015 <http://www.ibtimes.com/al-qaeda-hit-list-names-charliehebdos-stephane-charbonnier-salman-rushdie-among-1778686>.
9
Adam Sage, Charlie Hebdo attack: Weve avenged prophet, Charlie is dead, The Australian, 9 January 2015
<http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/charlie-hebdo-attack-weve-avenged-prophet-charlie-isdead/story-fnb64oi6-1227178968201>.
10
Lucy Williamson, France attacks: Police storm Kosher supermarket, BBC, 9 January 2015
11
Molly Hennesey-Fiske, Ramin Mostaghin, Muslim leaders condemn French massacre, but some on street
disagree, LA Times, 10 January 2015 <http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-muslim-leaderscondemn-french-massacre-but-some-on-street-disagree-20150110-story.html>.
12
Charlie Hebdo shootings: More than 3 million people, led by world leaders, join historic marches across
France, ABC News, 12 January 2015 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-11/charlie-hebdo-worldleaders-historic-march-against-extremism/6011390>.
Page |3
as she attended to a traffic incident in the Paris district of Montrouge. He then fled the scene. A
Jewish school and synagogue is located 100 yards away from the scene of the murder and it is
believed this was Coulibalys target before his plans were detailed by the traffic accident and the
presence of police.13
On Friday Amedy Coulibaly resurfaced at a kosher supermarket where he murdered Four French
Jews while Lassana Bathily, a Muslim employee of the store, saved others by hiding them in a
freezer.14 Coulibaly was clearly targeting the Jewish community.
The French Government has deployed 5,000 police and military personnel around Jewish schools
and centres.15 A further 5,000 have been deployed to other sensitive sites.16 Despite this, Jews are
planning to leave France in record numbers.17 The French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, has stated
that France "would not be France" without her Jewish citizens and has urged them to stay. 18
With both journalists and Jews in the firing line, the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel
Pearl in Pakistan in 2002 comes to mind. He was murdered by terrorists because he was a reporter,
an American and, most of all, because he was a Jew.19 As Pearls friend and fellow journalist Asra Q.
Nomani reported, his killer claimed that killing a Jew would make for powerful propaganda and
incite his fellow jihadis.20 The incidents in France are also a reminder of the attack in Mumbai in
2008 where 166 people were murdered at luxury hotels, a cafe, a train station and a Jewish center
over a three day period.21
The Jews remain the canary in the coal mine. In November 2014, US Ambassador to the United
Nations, Samantha Power, told an antisemitism conference in Berlin that, Anti-Semitic attacks are
not only a threat to the Jewish community; they are a threat to the larger project of European
liberalism and pluralism and should be treated as such. Anti-Semitism threatens the core principles
13
Anne Penketh, Paris shootings: Jewish school likely target of gunman Coulibaly,
The Guardian, 12 January 2015 <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/paris-shootings-jewishschool-target-amedy-coulibaly>.
14
Meghan Keneally, Paris Terror Attacks: Inside Kosher Grocery Store as Gunman Held Hostages, ABC News,
12 January 2015 <http://abcnews.go.com/International/paris-terror-attacks-photos-show-fear-insidekosher/story?id=28165630>; Dominique Debucquoy-Dodley, Kosher grocery employee, a Muslim, hailed as
hero for hiding customers, CNN, 13 January 2015
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/10/europe/kosher-grocery-employee/>.
15
Lucy Williamson, Jewish schools tense after Paris attacks, BBC News, 12 January 2015
16
Ibid.
17
Editorial, Wave of French aliyah to Israel on its way, ynet news, 11 January 2015
<http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4613968,00.html>.
18
Lucy Williamson, Jewish schools tense after Paris attacks, BBC News, 12 January 2015
19
Samantha Power, Remarks at the Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture, United States Mission to the United
Nations, 23 February 2014 <http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/221980.htm>.
20
Asra Q. Nomani, This is Danny Pearls Final Story, Washingtonian,
<http://www.washingtonian.com/projects/KSM/>.
21
AFP, 6 years after the horrific 26/11 attacks, Mumbais Chabad House reopens, The Times of India,
26 August 2014 <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/articleshow/40908519.cms>.
Page |4
upon which a peaceful and stable Europe has been built.22 She noted that, In France, for example,
where Jews account for less than one percent of the population, in 2013 they were the victims of 40
percent of reported attacks based on race, religion or ethnicity.23
Its an unfortunate fact that rising antisemitism appears to be a predictor for a breakdown of human
rights, and that terrorist attacks today seem to inevitably look to include a Jewish target. The attacks
in France were no different, and the response by the French Government is recognition that with
further terror cells thought to be at large, Frances Jewish community is particularly at risk.
RECOMMENDATION: Greater high level Government attention is needed on the problem of
antisemitism. States are urged to ensure appropriate high level representation at the Global
Forum to Combat Antisemitism which will take place in Jerusalem in May 2015.
Antisemitism as a step to radicalisation

The targeting of Jews in terrorist attacks is not accidental, but rather ideologically driven. This
growth of antisemitism must therefore be tackled to safeguard not only the Jewish community, but
society as a whole. The weakening of anti-racism groups efforts to tackle antisemitism must be
addressed, as must the importation of a culture of antisemitism from the Arab world into France,
and Europe more generally. Tackling antisemitism will help to tackle radicalisation more broadly.
Last year concerns were raised about parts of many European cities, where a high percentage of
Muslims live, becoming no go zones for Europes Jews.24 There is a growing casual acceptance of
antisemitism in Europe. This is in part the result of a blurring of lines in the anti-Racism movement,
where the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitic expression has been lost.
Some terrorist groups, like Hamas, have been actively promoting this slide into antisemitism with
social media policies advocating comparisons between Israel and the Nazis.25 There has been a
blurring of the distinction between adopting a position against Israel, and adopting a more explicitly
antisemitic position against Jews.26
Within Europes anti-racism movement, antisemitism is seen as less urgent than the fight against
xenophobia affecting recent immigrant communities; in comparison to recent immigrants, Jews are
often seen as privileged and less deserving of support.27 This attitude also reflects solidarity with
recent immigrants, some of whom may hold antisemitic views which, in the culture from which they
come, are regarded as normal. As David Greenberg explains, mainstream Arab culture promotes
extreme anti-Semitic ideas through schools, newspapers, television, popular culture, and official
22
Samantha Power, Remarks at the 10th Anniversary of the OSCE's Berlin Conference on Anti-Semitism,
United States Mission to the United Nations, 13 November 2014
<http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/234009.htm>.
23
Ibid
24
Jim Yardley, Europes Anti-Semitism Comes Out of the Shadows, The New York Times, 23 September 2014
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/world/europe/europes-anti-semitism-comes-out-of-shadows.html>.
25
Andre Oboler, The rise of antisemitism in this war is no accident, The Australian, 11 August 2014
<http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/rise-of-antisemitism-from-this-war-is-no-accident/
story-e6frg6zo-1227019751302>.
26
27
Ibid
Page |5
ideology.28 The European Jewish Congresss European policy director, Philip Carmel, has warned
that, The Middle East is being imported into Europe.29 The connection between the radicalization
among large Muslim communities in western Europe and the wave of anti-Semitism cannot be
ignored Anshei Pfeffer wrote in Haaretz in August last year.30 Recent research has also highlighted
the prevalence of antisemitic views in the Arab world.31
The weakening of civil society opposition to antisemitism, and the slide from criticism of Israel into
outright expressions of hate against Jews, combined to create a new highly volatile situation. This
was particularly the case during the 2014 war between Hamas and Israel with many noticing that a
red line had been crossed.32 The Jewish Chronicles editor, Stephen Pollard, commented that,
people were not attacked because they were showing their support for the Israeli government.
They were attacked because they were Jews, going about their daily business.33 Social media has
facilitated the spreading of antisemitic messages and attitudes and it has done so across borders and
cultures. Through social media, the problem manifested itself in Australia as well, as OHPI has
previously reported.34
There were warning signs well before the attacks in January 2015. France's Chief Rabbi, Haim Korsia,
warned in September last year of the rising tide of antisemitism as a result of French youths
radicalised by Islamists.35 He warned that, "the risk [of another attack] is not theoretical, it is
unfortunately real".36 He went on to note how an attack on a synagogue in Sarcelles last year was
followed by an attack, by the same people, on a police station. He referred to a convergence of the
enemies of France", and said that while the Jewish community is targeted more directly, the
problem was a risk for all of society.37
The problem has also been highlighted by others. John OSullivan, for example, questioned why the
Left in France and Western Europe tolerates Islamist anti-Semitism, or makes excuses for it, or
denies it, or simply fails to notice it.38 He warned that, Nations are cultural communities and the
28
David Greenberg, The roots of Arab Anti-Semitism, Slate, 31 October 2001

<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2001/10/
the_roots_of_arab_antisemitism.html>.
29
30
Anshel Pfeffer, Anti-Semitism in Europe: A crisis, but not yet a catastrophe, Haaretz, 12 August 2014
<http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/.premium-1.610089>.
31
Adam Lebor, Exodus: Why Europe's Jews Are Fleeing Once Again, Newsweek, 29 July 2014
<http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/08/exodus-why-europes-jews-are-fleeing-once-again-261854.html>.
32
Anshel Pfeffer, Anti-Semitism in Europe: A crisis, but not yet a catastrophe, Haaretz, 12 August 2014
<http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/.premium-1.610089>.
33
Adam Lebor, Exodus: Why Europe's Jews Are Fleeing Once Again, Newsweek, 29 July 2014
<http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/08/exodus-why-europes-jews-are-fleeing-once-again-261854.html>.
34
An Antisemitic Response to the Hamas-Israel war, Online Hate Prevention Institute, 22 July 2014
<http://ohpi.org.au/an-antisemitic-response-to-the-hamas-israel-war/>; 60 Minutes Unholy War, Online
Hate Prevention Institute, 26 July 2014 <http://ohpi.org.au/60-minutes-unholy-war/>
35
Rory Mulholland, French anti-Semitism spike threatens society, The Local fr, 16 September 2014
<http://www.thelocal.fr/20140916/jews-religion-society-islam-france-rabbi>.
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid.
38
John OSullivan, Whats Behind Europes New Toleration of Anti-Semitism?, National Review Online,
15 August 2014 <http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385506/whats-behind-europes-new-toleration-antisemitism-john-osullivan>.
Page |6
sense of common fellowship and destiny they promote enables different ethnic and religious groups
to live together in relative harmony. If those commonalities evaporate or are frivolously destroyed, a
war of all against all will erupt and spread by degrees. Europes current war on the Jews is the first
flickering sign of that Armageddon.39
RECOMMENDATION: Tackling online antisemitism should be a part of tackling the problem of selfradicalisation through social media.
The French Medias response to the attacks

The view of much of the French media can be summed up in a statement by Publihebdos, a media
outlet whose editor was the wife of one of the police officers murdered in the Charlie Hebdo attack:
'With this attack... freedom of the press is challenged and through it all our freedoms. Our duty, the
honor of the publishing community is to affirm more than ever its solidarity with his friends of
Charlie Hebdo for the defense and illustration of the freedom of the press. It is also to declare that it
will never yield to threats and intimidation against intangible principles of freedom of expression.40
This position must be understood in light of the principle of lacit and the French history of political
satire.
French history of political satire

Charlie Hebdos cartoons need to be seen in the context of the aggressive French cartooning
tradition.41 As Arthur Goldhammer wrote in Aljazeera.com, There is an old Parisian tradition of
cheeky humour that respects nothing and no one. The French even have a word for it: gouaille.
Think of obscene images of Marie Antoinette and other royals, of priests in flagrante delicto with
nuns, of devils farting in the popes face and Daumiers caricatures of King Louis Philippe. Its an
anarchic populist form of obscenity that aims to cut down anything that would erect itself as
venerable, sacred or powerful, and is directed against authority in general, against hierarchy and
against the presumption that any individual or group has exclusive possession of the truth. 42
In fact, Charlie Hebdo in the past had also mocked the Catholic Church (by showing the Pope holding
a condom) and Marie Le Pen, the leader of the extreme right-wing political party Front National
(showing her modelling for John Galliano, the French fashion designer who made news in 2013 for
39
Ibid
Paul Bentley et al, 'He died defending the right to ridicule his faith': France unites behind #JeSuisAhmed on
Twitter in tribute to Muslim officer slain by fanatics as he begged for his life, Daily Mail Australia,
8 January 2015 <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901681/>.
41
Ho ho, very satirical, The Economist, 2 December 2010 <http://www.economist.com/node/17632947>.
42
Arthur Goldhammer, Lets not sacralize Charlie Hebdo, Aljazeera America, 7 January 2015
<http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/1/charlie-hebdo-gouaillesatireislamjournalism.html>.
40
Page |7
an antisemitic tirade).43 The publication took on the taboos set by Islamic orthodoxy with a particular
zeal. In one issue Mohammed was represented as a porn star, naked and in a sexual pose.44
In the case of content mocking Mohammed and Islam, the concept of gouaille is combined with
another French idea, that of lacit.
Charlie Hebdo and the concept of lacit

Lacit is a form of official secularism, which was written into French law in 1905.45 The concept was
intended to ensure a separation between the French State and the Catholic Church. More recently,
this idea has morphed into the idea of a separation between religion, as a strictly private matter, and
life in public. The argument in favour of this is that such separation will ensure everyone gets along
in society, the same argument that is used to the opposite effect to support laws against religious
vilification. This French approach to harmony is what led, for example, to the French ban on school
girls and government employees wearing Muslim headscarves in public.46
The extremist view of lacit is in fact the exact opposite of the idea of freedom of religion expressed
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 18 of the UDHR states that Everyone
has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change
his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private,
to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.47
Lacit is particularly important to Charlie Hebdo which sees itself as an atheist paper, a secularist
paper as Grard Biard, Charlie Hebdos editor-in-chief, said in 2012.48 He explained, Youre not
supposed to use religion for your sense of identity, in any case not in a secular state.49 Vincent
Geisser, a French sociologist and political scientist, explained in 2012 that, Charlie Hebdo is only
looking to impose its secular purity by treating everyone else as fanatics.50 Following the recent
attacks, Grard Biard has confirmed this characterisation, saying that, Lacit is not just some
abstract idea. It is a moral value, and I believe today, one must recognise that lacit is perhaps the
43
Mariam Krule, Charlie Hebdos Most Controversial Religious Covers, Explained, Slate, 7 January 2015
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/01/07/
charlie_hebdo_covers_religious_satire_cartoons_translated_and_explained.html>;
Amanda Taub & Joe Posner, Charlie Hebdos most famous cartoons, translated and explained, Vox, 8 January
2015 <http://www.vox.com/2015/1/8/7515673/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-translated/in/7271890>.
44
Libby Nelson, Why is Charlie Hebdo so controversial?, Vox, 9 January 2015
<http://www.vox.com/cards/charlie-hebdo-attack/charlie-hebdo-satire-controversy#E7271770>;
Scott Sayare, The Charlie Hebdo I Know, The Atlantic, 11 January 2015
<http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/
charlie-hebdo-secularism-religion-islam/384413/>.
45
46
Ibid.
47
rd
rd
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217A (III), UN GAOR, 3 sess, 183 plen
mtg, UN Doc A/RES/217A (III) (10 December 1948) <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>
48
49
Ibid
50
Ibid.
Page |8
prime moral value of our Republic. Because without it, Libert, galit, and Fraternit isnt
possible.51 Charlie Hebdos satirising of Islam is then part of a very real attack on religion and on
religious freedom.
OHPI has previously discussed satire and the idea of punching upwards against the powerful,
rather than downwards to target minorities.52 Charlie Hebdos determination to caricature the
Prophet Mohammed in a dumb and nasty manner can be seen in the abstract as punching up
against the power of religious orthodoxy, but in reality it is punching down against a largely
marginalised Muslim minority in France. It sends the message that those of Muslim faith must give
up their religion in order to belong to French society. Scott Sayare has summarised the situation well
in The Atlantic writing that, From a perch of privilege, the former outsiders, who still relished the
fight, turned their attention to what they perceived as threats to the values theyd helped instate
attacking the weak, in the end, as they had once attacked the powerful.53
RECOMMENDATION: The concept of Lacit, especially in its extreme view which is intolerant of
religion, is not something that should be imported into Australia.
The response of the media outside France

In response to the attack on Charlie Hebdo, some have called for further publication of the pictures
of Mohammed. Richard Miniter writes in Forbes, real safety lies in collective, unified action... If
every newspaper and news web site reprinted the cartoons, the jihadists would see that their
actions are futile and only fuel the spread of the images they abhor.54 Nick Cohen, writing in the
Guardian, has decried the unwillingness to print the cartoons as self censorship out of fear. He
writes that, the BBC, Channel 4 and many newspapers wont run any images of Mohammad
whatsoever. They would at least have acknowledged censorship if they had announced that they
were frightened of attacks on their staff.55
By contrast, the editors of many other leading newspapers have adopted a different position. Martin
Baron, Executive Editor of the Washington Post, said the Washington Post would avoid printing
material that is pointedly, deliberately, or needlessly offensive to members of religious groups.56
Santiago Lyon, a vice president of the Associated Press said they didnt think it was useful to
51
Ibid.
Landover Baptist Church and the limits of satire, Online Hate Prevention Institute, 3 June 2014
<http://ohpi.org.au/landover-baptist-church-and-the-limits-of-satire/>.
53
<http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-secularism-religionislam/384413/>.
54
Richard Miniter, No, We Are Not All Charlie Hebdo, Forbes.com, 9 January, 2015
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardminiter/2015/01/09/no-we-are-not-all-charlie-hebdo/>.
55
Nick Cohen, Paris attacks: unless we overcome fear, self-censorship will spread, The Guardian: Comment is
Free, 11 January 2015 <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/paris-attacks-we-mustovercome-fear-or-selfcensorship-will-spread>
56
Paul Farhi News organizations wrestle with whether to publish Charlie Hebdo cartoons after attack, The
Washington Post, 7 January, 2015 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/news-organizationswrestle-with-whether-to-publish-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-after-attack/2015/01/07/841e9c8c-96bc-11e4-80051924ede3e54a_story.html>.
52
Page |9
publish hate speech or spectacles that offend, provoke or intimidate, or anything that desecrates
religious symbols or angers people along religious or ethnic lines.57
The New York Times Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan, explained the position taken by Dean Baquet,
the papers executive editor. Baquet said he had consulted widely and changed his mind a number
of times, but ultimately decided not to reproduce images from Charlie Hebdo out of respect for the
sensibilities of his readers. He explained that many readers would find the images offensive,
particularly if they were mocking in their nature. He further stated that the New York Times has a
standard that is long held and that serves us well: that there is a line between gratuitous insult and
satire. He went on to say that most of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were gratuitous insult. Sullivan
went on to call Baquets position, careful and conscientious and in keeping with the papers
standards, but suggested that a review and reconsideration of those standards may be in order in
the days ahead.58
In an editorial, The Guardian explained their rejection of demands to print the cartoons of
Mohammed from Charlie Hebdo. They wrote that, support for a magazines inalienable right to
make its own editorial judgments does not commit you to echo or amplify those judgments. Put
another way, defending the right of someone to say whatever they like does not oblige you to
repeat their words.59
A similar view, with an even stronger conclusion, was published in a tweet by Glenn Greenwald. He
separates the question of support for freedom of speech and solidarity with other journalists from
the question of republication of the cartoons and asks, When did it become true that to defend
someone's free speech rights, one has to publish & even embrace their ideas? [Does] that apply in all
cases?60 Greenwalds tweet cuts to the heart of the issue. There is no need for us all to behave in a
manner that is dumb and nasty in order to express our outrage at the killing of people who
specialised in producing material that was itself intentionally dumb and nasty. There is nothing
inconsistent in being appalled and outraged by the murder of the Charlie Hebdo staff, while also
finding some of the content they published very objectionable.
While we dont believe freedom of speech should apply to hate speech, as it does in the United
States where hate speech is legally protected, we believe a distinction must be drawn between
supporting the principle of free speech and repeating the hate speech itself. When the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defended the right of the National Socialist Party of America (i.e. Nazis)
to march through the predominately Jewish community of Skokie, Illinois, in 1978, they didnt dress
up as Nazis as part of their support.61 The distinction between supporting someones speech, and
supporting what they actually said is critically important.
57
Ibid.
Margaret Sullivan, A Close Call on Publication of Charlie Hebdo Cartoons, New York Times, 8 January, 2015
<A Close Call on Publication of Charlie Hebdo Cartoons>.
59
The Guardian view on Charlie Hebdo: show solidarity, but in your own voice, The Guardian, 9 January 2015
<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/08/guardian-view-charlie-hebdo-show-solidarityown-voice>.
60
Glenn Greenwald, Twitter, 8 January 2015 <https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/553179843882663937>.
61
Teju Cole Unmournable Bodies, The New Yorker, 9 January 2015
<http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/unmournable-bodies>.
58
P a g e | 10
RECOMMENDATION: The media should not, as an act of symbolism, re-print content which
breaches their usual editorial standards.
The Je Suis meme in social media

The phrase Je Suis Charlie, I am Charlie, went viral on social media following the attack, with
5,600,000 tweets.62 While not the most popular hashtag ever, its spread was over five times larger
than the #sydneysiege hashtag used during the Lindt Cafe attack in December 2014.
Frances most famous cartoonist, 87-year-old Albert Uderzo, the creator of Asterix, came out of
retirement to pen a cartoon with Asterix declaring Im Charlie too. He went on to say I am not
changing my work, I simply want to express my affection for the cartoonists that paid for their work
with their lives. He called the attack appalling and an insanity, and asked, how can people
claiming to be human beings murder people they have never met but have said something wrong so
from that moment, must be killed?63
The nature of some of the content in Charlie Hebdo made saying Je Suis Charlie inappropriate for
many. Some, like Sally Kohn, raised concerns with a conflation of support for free speech with
support for the actual speech in question.64 Kohn warned that, in the aftermath of the heinous
attacks in Paris, it's important we remember that free speech and respect can go hand-in-hand.65
Members of Frances Muslim community, in particular, were placed in a difficult position. They soon
started the hashtag Je Suis Ahmed, I am Ahmed. The hashtag refers to Ahmed Merabet, a Muslim
Police officer whose beat included the Charlie Hebdo offices.66 A video of the attack on the Charlie
Hebdo offices shows him on the ground begging for his life, before being executed with a gunshot to
the head. I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I
died defending his right to do so. #JesuisAhmed reads one tweet.67
62
Misa Han How #JeSuisCharlie, #sydneysiege featured on social media, Sydney Morning Herald, 11 January,
2015 <http://www.smh.com.au/world/how-jesuischarlie-sydneysiege-featured-on-social-media-2015011112ls39.html>.
63
Luella-Mae Eleftheriou-Smith Charlie Hebdo: Asterix creator Albert Uderzo comes out of retirement to
draw 'Je suis Charlie' cartoon, The Independent, 9 January, 2015 <http://www.independent.co.uk/artsentertainment/art/news/charlie-hebdo-asterix-creator-albert-uderzo-comes-out-of-retirement-to-draw-jesuis-charlie-cartoon-9968835.html.
64
Sally John, Free Speech comes with responsibilties, CNN International, January 11 2015
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/10/opinions/kohn-free-speech-responsibility/>.
65
Ibid.
66
Paul Bently et al 'He died defending the right to ridicule his faith': France unites behind #JeSuisAhmed on
Twitter in tribute to Muslim officer slain by fanatics as he begged for his life, The Daily Mail, 8 January 2015
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901681/Hero-police-officer-executed-street-married-42-year-oldMuslim-assigned-patrol-Paris-neighbourhood-Charlie-Hebdo-offices-located.html>.
67
Anhar Riardi, Twitter, 11 January 2015 <https://twitter.com/anharaia/status/554299439326588929>.
P a g e | 11
The Je Suis Ahmed hashtag helped to highlight both the integration of Muslims into French society,
the indiscriminate nature of the killers, and the fact that Muslims had already died in the attack a
plea against attacks against the Muslim community in response to the Charlie Hebdo attack.
The JeSuis meme spread further, taking on many other references, and culminating in extended
displays of solidarity such as the sign:68
Je Suis Policier
I am a policeman
Je Suis Juif
I am Jewish
Je Suis Musulman
I am Muslim
Je Suis Chretien
I am Christian
Je Suis Athee
I am an atheist
Je Suis Francais
I am French
Je Suis Citoyen Du Monde

world
I am a citizen of the
Je Suis Charlie
I am Charlie
The Je Suis Humain hashtag, providing a universal message I am a human, started with the
68
Alessio Viola, Twitter, 11 January 2015

<https://twitter.com/alessioviola/status/554290024003694593/photo/1>.
P a g e | 12
German rally in support of France after the shooting.69 It expresses a message against both terrorism
and the divisiveness of the content of Charlie Hebdo itself. The message was able to expand into a
reflection on other unfolding events like the Boko Haram massacre of 2,000 people in Nigeria.70
Worryingly, over 21,000 Twitter users began using the hashtag Je Suis Kouachi, referring to the
brothers responsible for the Charlie Hebdo attack. The hashtag was initially only used to support
terrorism, but later others began to use it to condemn the use of the hashtag and demand Twitter
take action to block it.71 Roger Cukierman, the President of CRIF, the peak Jewish community body in
France, stated that, these youngsters are not educated by our schools any more, they are not
educated on the radio or the television they are all educated through the social networks. This
highlights the danger of radicalisation and incitement which such a hashtag can create.
69
Monika Mller-Kroll "Je Suis Humain:" 18,000 Gather At French Embassy in Berlin, NPR Berlin, 12 January
2015 <http://nprberlin.de/post/je-suis-humain-18000-gather-french-embassy-berlin>.
70
Azeernah Mohammed Azeenarh Mohammed: I Am Human, I Am Nigerian,I Am Gay, NewsWireNGR, 23
January 2014 <http://newswirengr.com/2014/01/23/azeenarh-mohammed-i-am-human-i-am-nigeriani-amgay/>.
71
Danna Harman "Je Suis Kouachi: In the Paris suburb where no one went to the march, 'Charlie' is no rally
cry, Haaretz, 14 Janaury 2015 <http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.637135>.
P a g e | 13
RECOMMENDATION: Social media users should think carefully about the symbolism of campaigns
such as Je Suis Charlie and who such campaigns exclude. More universal messages, such as Je
Suis Humain should be preferred.
RECOMMENDATION: Accounts promoting terrorism should be immediately closed by social media
companies. Hosting providers, including blogging platforms, should immediately close accounts
promoting terrorism.
The Islamic view of drawing Mohammed

The Imam for the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center (Falls Church, Virginia), Johari Abdul-Malik, has
explained that the Koran itself does not contain a prohibition on images of Mohammed being
shown.72 Dr Omid Safi, a professor of religious studies at Duke University, has noted that while
images of Mohammed are not present in the Arab Islamic context, they do exist in the Iranian,
Turkish and central Asian contexts.73
A prohibition on images of Mohammed is said to exist in a hadith, which is a record of conversations
by Mohammed and his closest companions.74 Hadiths are second only to the Koran in religious
authority to Muslims. However, hadiths are open to multiple interpretations and the one on images
of Mohammed gives an ambiguous picture at best according to Christiane Gruber, an associate
professor at the University of Michigan and an expert in paintings of the Prophet Muhammad.75
Grubers article includes pictures of Mohammed in Islamic art from as early as the fourteenth
century.
The situation may be different when it comes to content insulting Mohammed or other prophets
and their relatives. The Koran does prohibit such insults, but also prohibits violent retaliation against
those who make such insults.76 The Muslim religious view of what is an offensive cartoon of
Mohammed, which for some may include any cartoon of the Prophet at all, is a very different
standard to what would be commonly accepted as unacceptably offensive in contemporary
Australia. At the same time, some depictions of Mohammed, including some published by Charlie
Hebdo, may well cross the standards of decency for ordinary Australians. In Australia, material which
is very high in impact and falls outside generally accepted community standards can be Refused
Classification under Australias National Classification Code. Such material is banned in Australia.77
72
Daniel Burke Why Islam forbids images of Mohammed, CNN, 9 January 2015
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/07/living/islam-prophet-images/>.
73
Ibid.
74
Christian Gruber Koran Does Not Forbid Images of the Prophet, Newsweek, 9 January 2015
<http://www.newsweek.com/koran-does-not-forbid-images-prophet-298298>.
75
Daniel Burke Why Islam forbids images of Mohammed, CNN, 9 January 2015
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/07/living/islam-prophet-images/>.
76
Sarah Harvard That Radical Cleric in USA Today Is Absolutely Wrong About Islam and Blasphemy, Slate, 8
January 2015
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/01/08/charlie_hebdo_and_islam_what_that_radical_cleric_in
_usa_today_gets_wrong.html>.
77
Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Classification
<www.classification.gov.au/guidelines/pages/rc.aspx>
P a g e | 14
Another meaning for the words offends and insults is found in the legal interpretation of
legislation like Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)(RDA). This sets both an
objective test and a high bar. As Justice Bromberg wrote in the Bolt judgement, while the ordinary
meaning of these words is potentially quite broad, and offend can mean to hurt or irritate the
feelings of another person, legally speaking, the term relates to something which is not merely
injurious to the individual, but is injurious to the public interest and relevantly, the publics interest
in a socially cohesive society. 78 In this light, Justice Bromberg explained, the law sees the term
offend as being concerned with consequences it regards as more serious than mere personal
hurt, harm or fear.79 Offend is also held by the courts to be something having a profound and
serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights.80 Justice Bromberg described injury to the
standing or social acceptance of the person or group of people as an example of this, explaining
that social cohesion is dependent upon harmonious interactions between members of a society.81
It must be noted that, provided it is done reasonably and in good faith, Section 18D of the RDA will
protect artistic work even when it does offend or insult within the meaning of S 18C. The
combined rule, therefore, is very strongly in favour of freedom of speech, but not of speech with
profound and serious effects, made gratuitously, and only to cause harm.
RECOMMENDATION: The standard of what constitutes offence in Australia, both in terms of
generally accepted community standards for classification, and in terms of offensiveness at
law in a discrimination context, should not change.
RECOMMENDATION: Muslim leaders should clearly differentiate between content Islam may find
offensive, and anti-Muslim content which society as whole should find offensive. Public
condemnation should be reserved for the latter.
Facebooks response
The Online Hate Prevention Institute focuses on social media, so we took particular interest in a
Facebook post by Mark Zuckerberg where he used the #JeSuisCharlie hashtag; the post is supposedly
about freedom of speech.82 He writes of an extremist from Pakistan who he says fought to have me
sentenced to death because Facebook refused to ban content about Mohammed that offended
him.83 He writes, we stood up for this because different voices - even if they're sometimes
offensive - can make the world a better and more interesting place.84 Zuckerberg, sitting in the US,
does not stand up to individuals in Pakistan by merely ignoring them. Nor is Facebook regarded as
a publisher of such cartoons, or indeed of anything else users post to their platform. Zuckerbergs
post is little more than a call for Facebook to be left alone, as it makes advertising revenue from all
the content people post, including the hate speech that Facebook fails to remove. Hate speech does
not make the world better and more interesting.
78
Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103, [263] <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html>.

Ibid.
80
Ibid [268]; Creek v Cairns Post Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1007 [16]
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2001/1007.html>.
81
Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103, [264] <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html>.
82
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, 9 January, 2015
<https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101844454210771>.
83
Ibid.
84
Ibid.
79
P a g e | 15
Zuckerberg writes, I'm committed to building a service where you can speak freely without fear of
violence.85 This was not the experience of members of the LGBT community who were put in
danger due to Facebooks enforcement of a real name policy against them, a policy since reversed
with an apology.86 Facebook, by its very nature, cannot give people protection from violence. If used
properly, and fully, a Facebook account will give out enough details to allow a user to be identified
and found. A Facebook policy that encourages users to share identifying details, including their real
name, and to then also post content which antagonises others (making the world a more
interesting place) puts people at risk.
The Facebook response can be compared to that of the Australian Press Council over a cartoon by
Glen Le Lievre. The cartoon is described by the Press Council as, depicted an elderly man with a
large nose, wearing the distinctively Jewish head covering called a kippah or yarmulke, and sitting in
an armchair emblazoned with the Star of David. He was pointing a TV remote control device at an
exploding cityscape, implied to be Gaza.87 The Press Council concluded that the cartoons linkage
between the Jewish faith and the Israeli rocket attacks on Gaza was reasonably likely to cause great
offence to many readers. A linkage with Israeli nationality might have been justifiable in the public
interest, despite being likely to cause offence. But the same cannot be said of the implied linkage
with the Jewish faith that arose from inclusion of the kippah and the Star of David. Accordingly, the
Councils Standards of Practice were breached on the ground of causing greater offence to readers
sensibilities than was justifiable in the public interest.88
85
Ibid.
Nadiya Kayyali and Jillian Fox, Facebook's 'Real Name' Policy Can Cause Real-World Harm for the LGBTQ
Community, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 16 September 2014
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/09/facebooks-real-name-policy-can-cause-real-world-harm-lgbtqcommunity>; Chris Cox, Facebook, 2 October 2014
<https://www.facebook.com/chris.cox/posts/10101301777354543>.
87
Adjudication 1634: Complainant/The Sydney Morning Herald (January 2015), Australian Press Council, 17
January 2015 <http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/adj-1634/>.
88
Ibid.
86
P a g e | 16
This Australian Press Council based their decision on two of their general principles: General
Principle 7 says that, Publications have a wide discretion in publishing material, but they should
balance the public interest with the sensibilities of their readers, particularly when the material, such
as photographs, could reasonably be expected to cause offence.89 General Principle 8 says that,
Publications should not place any gratuitous emphasis on the race, religion, nationality, colour,
country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness, or age of an individual
or group. Where it is relevant and in the public interest, publications may report and express
opinions in these areas.90 These are good principles for social media companies to consider as well.
The principles are heavily reliant on context, and it should be recognised that content that is in the
public interest when published alongside an article in a newspaper, may not be in the public interest
when published on its own in another context and at another time.
While the press has editorial controls, journalistic ethics, and regulation either through government
or through self-regulation, such as a press council, social media can easily become a free for all. Only
the terms of service and their application by the platform providers regulate what can and cannot be
shared. If platform providers adopt lax standards, or fail to uphold their own community standards,
a platform can quickly become a free for all where hate speech can go viral. Stronger limitations in
the terms of service and community standards of social media platforms, compared to the
mainstream media, are justified to prevent a viral spread of hate.
RECOMMENDATION: Facebook and other social media platforms should prohibit gratuitously
offensive images of religious, national or ethnic symbols. Under this policy social media companies
should prohibit gratuitously offensive images of Mohammed.
RECOMMENDATION: Facebook and other social media companies should prohibit all hate speech
directed against people who are Muslim.
When is a cartoon of Mohammed hate speech?

A cartoon should not be considered hate speech merely because it depicts Mohammed. Such an
approach would be too much of an imposition of free speech. Equally concerning, however, is the
idea that any cartoon which depicts Mohammed is not hate speech. We have seen the danger of
such over-simplifications in relation to Facebooks approach to the Holocaust. Facebook refuses to
recognise Holocaust denial as a form of hate speech, a problem in and of itself, leading Facebook to
reject any complaints of hate speech which involved the image of Hitler. This overly simplistic
approach ignored real problems of hate speech by focusing on defending symbolism. As we
previously reported, this led to the rejection of reports of content that involved cyber-bullying,
substance abuse, and RIP trolling, simply because the image of Hitler was invoked.91
When it comes to determining whether a cartoon of Mohammed is hate speech, we believe two
factors should be considered. The first is whether the cartoon is really about Mohammed, or
whether Mohammed is being used as a symbolic representation for Muslims in general.
89
Ibid.
Ibid.
91
Andre Oboler, The Hitler Shield: Mocking the Dead at Facebook, Jerusalem Post Blogs, 24 October 2012
<http://ohpi.org.au/the-hitler-shield-mocking-the-dead-at-facebook/>.
90
P a g e | 17
In a previous report we have discussed the antisemitic meme of the Jew, a specific cartoon which is
used persistently by neo-Nazis to represents Jews.92 That cartoon directly invokes negative tropes
and is by its nature an antisemitic portrayal of Jews. Even if this were not the case, a cartoon would
be antisemitic if it was used to promote an antisemitic narrative. A cartoon where Jews were
represented as a standard stick figure would be antisemitic if the content promoted the idea of the
blood libel, that is, that Jews ritually murder Christian children.93 When the message of a cartoon of
Mohammed is that all Muslims are terrorists, the cartoon can safely be regarded as hate speech.
One such cartoon is the picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. The original version of this
image was drawn by Kurt Westergaard and was considered the most controversial of the original
Danish Cartoons of Mohammed. Westergaard has rejected the common interpretation of his
cartoon. He said that, There are interpretations, which are not correct. It is a common perception
among Muslims that [the cartoon] goes against Islam as a whole. It does not. It refers to those with a
specific fundamentalist trait, which of course is not shared by all. 94 Westergaards mistake was to
use of the image of Mohammed, seen as a representative of all Muslims, in a context in which he
was speaking about a far narrower group. He explained that he has used the symbolism of the bomb
in the turban in other contexts to depict terrorists, and only ran into controversy once Mohammed
was added to the context.95
The second factor we believe should be
considered in determining if a cartoon of
Mohammed is hate speech is whether the
cartoon is so blatantly excessive that it offends
the common standards of decency in society.
Some of the images in Charlie Hebdo were so
offensive that this may be the case. Had they
been drawn with an Australian politician, of any
party, substituted for Mohammed, the same
argument and consideration would apply, even
in the face of our implied constitutional right to
freedom of political communication. The
standard that applies to cartoons of Mohammed
should be no different to the standard that
would apply to anyone else, or to any other
symbolic figure. The limit in Australia is
extremely high, but there is a limit.96
92
Andre Oboler, The Antisemitic Meme of the Jew, Online Hate Prevention Institute, 6 February 2014,
<http://ohpi.org.au/the-antisemitic-meme-of-the-jew/>.
93
Of course we then run into other problems such as Facebooks refusal to remove blood libel
content, for example, despite blocking access to the page Jewish Ritual Murder (ID #
322140667835235) for Australian users on October 10th 2013, Facebook has repeatedly refused to
close the page and it remains accessible to other users. See Andre Oboler, The Antisemitic Meme of
the Jew, Online Hate Prevention Institute, 6 February 2014, <http://ohpi.org.au/the-antisemitic-meme-of-thejew/>.
94
Jannik Brinch, Bombens Ophavsmand, Jyllands-Posten Indland, 26 February 2006, <http://jyllandsposten.dk/indland/ECE3831814/bombens-ophavsmand/>.
95
Ibid.
96
Donald McDonald Ceonsoring the insensible, The Australian, 2 October, 2007
<http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/ceonsoring-the-insensible/story-e6frg8n61111114545521?nk=fbe1b8146e7681b90581a816c3e1d77e>.
P a g e | 18
A comparison can be made between some cartoons of Mohammed and art works like the 1987
photograph "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano. Piss Christ is a photograph of a statue of Jesus Christ
floating in a glass of the artists urine.97 The work is considered highly controversial and has led to
death threats against gallery owners who have displayed it.98 In 1997 Cardinal George Pell, then
Archbishop of Melbourne, tried to use the common law cause of blasphemous libel, last
successfully used in Australia in 1871, to prevent the work being displayed.99 Justice Harper rejected
the argument ruling that, "A plural society such as contemporary Australia operates best where the
law need not bother with blasphemous libel". The work itself was attacked twice while on display at
the National Gallery of Australia in Melbourne.100 It was again vandalised, this time by Catholic
fundamentalists, while on display at a French gallery in Avignon in 2011.101 The Associated Press
recently pulled an old picture of the Piss Christ from its website after allegations of inconsistency
between its publication of that image and its refusal to publish the Charlie Hebdo picture of
Mohammed.102
RECOMMENDATION: A cartoon should not be considered hate speech merely because it depicts
Mohammed.
RECOMMENDATION: Cartoons portraying Muslims through negative stereotypes, using
Mohammed to symbolise all Muslims, should be considered a form of hate speech.
One comparison which should not be made is between the publication of cartoons of Mohammed
and cartoons about the Holocaust. Following the Danish cartoon incident in 2006, Hamshahri, one of
the top five Iranian newspapers by circulation, ran what it called the International Holocaust
Cartoon Competition.103 The paper, which is owned by the local government of Tehran, argued it
wanted to test if the West would apply the same principles of freedom of speech, which were
invoked in defence of the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, when it came to cartoons about the
Holocaust.104 Masoud Shojai, one of the conference organisers, explained, "You see they allow the
Prophet to be insulted. But when we talk about the Holocaust, they consider it so holy that they
punish people for questioning it.105 Following the Charlie Hebdo attack, some in social media have
argued that cartoons of Mohammed should be banned because they are insulting to Islam, just as
cartoons about the Holocaust would be insulting to Jews. These arguments, whether for the
97
Napp Nazworth 'Piss Christ' Photo Removed by AP After Journalist Points Out Double Standard for Not
Publishing Offensive Charlie Hebdo Islam Cartoon Christian Post, 8 January 2015
<http://www.christianpost.com/news/piss-christ-photo-removed-by-ap-after-journalist-points-out-doublestandard-for-not-publishing-offensive-charlie-hebdo-islam-cartoon-132289/>.
98
Dylan Byers AP pulls 'Piss Christ' after Paris attack, Politico, 7 January 2015
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/ap-pulls-piss-christ-after-paris-attack-200719.html>.
99
Elissa Hunt Andres Serrano 'Piss Christ' triggers religious fury and court battle in 1990s trials, Herald Sun, 6
March 2013 <http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/andres-serrano-piss-christ-triggers-religiousfury-and-court-battle-in-1990s-trials/story-fnat7dag1226591823318?nk=fbe1b8146e7681b90581a816c3e1d77e>.
100
Ibid
101
Angelique Chrisafis Attack on 'blasphemous' art work fires debate on role of religion in France, The
Guardian, 19 April 2011 <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/18/andres-serrano-piss-christdestroyed-christian-protesters>.
102
Dylan Byers AP pulls 'Piss Christ' after Paris attack, Politico, 7 January 2015
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/ap-pulls-piss-christ-after-paris-attack-200719.html>.
103
Scott Benjamin Holocaust Cartoon Contest In Iran, CBS, 7 February 2006
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/holocaust-cartoon-contest-in-iran/>.
104
Ibid.
105
Iran displays Holocaust cartoons, BBC, 15 August 2006
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4795709.stm>.
P a g e | 19
publication of Holocaust cartoons or against them, misunderstand the reason that countries like
France have criminal offences for Holocaust denial and for glorification of Nazism.
While Mohammed is a figure of religious belief, the Holocaust is a well documented fact of recent
history. The Holocaust is a tragedy of human history in which a vast number of people lost their
lives. Not only families, but entire communities were wiped out. The Holocaust is the event from
which the very concepts of genocide, and of crimes against humanity, were created. To mock the
Holocaust is not just to insult Jews, or to make fun of the dead, or to insult the survivors by calling
their testimony lies. These may be the reasons we object to Holocaust denial, but they are not the
reason why France and other countries ban Holocaust denial. The reason Holocaust denial is banned
is the same reason glorification of Nazism is banned. They are banned out of a desire to prevent a reemergence of fascism. As Professor Michael J. Bazyler explains, the aim of these laws is to prevent
the resurrection of Nazism in Europe by stamping [it] out at the earliest opportunity or to use the
phrase to nip it in the bud any public re-emergence of Nazi views, whether through speech,
symbols, or public association.106 The Holocaust is not a belief, and mocking the Holocaust is not
blasphemy, instead, it is a denial of historical fact and a form of incitement with very real and
dangerous implications. The comparison between a cartoon of Mohammed and a Holocaust cartoon
is a deeply flawed.
In response to the Iranian International Holocaust Cartoon Competition, Amitai Sandy, an Israeli
Jew, created the Israeli antisemitic cartoons contest.107 Sandy explained the competition saying
that, the contest for the best anti-Semitic cartoon was a demonstration of strength and self
confidence.108 Entries which made fun of Jesus or Mohammed were disqualified.109 Sandy described
himself as coming from the extreme Israeli left and said he didnt care if the competition played
into the hands of antisemites saying They dont need me, they have enough ideas on their own.110
One significant problem with the Israeli competition is that it increased the stock of antisemitic
images online. In the context of an exhibition in Israel, with the declared purpose of mocking
antisemitism, the competition may be little more than a curiosity. The cartoons have, however,
continued to circulate and, without context, have further inflamed antisemitism. This highlights
another distinct difference between cartoons of Mohammed, which may offend some Muslims
regardless of how Mohammed is represented, or the context of the cartoon, and cartoons actively
promoting hate, be it against Jews, Muslims or another group in society.
106
Michael J. Bazyler, Holocaust Denial Laws and Other Legislation Criminalizing Promotion of Nazism,
<http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/insights/pdf/bazyler.pdf>.
107
Terry Gross Stealing Thunder from Satirists in the Mideast, NPR, 16 February 2006
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5219479>.
108
Henryk M. Broder Jewish Caricature Contest: Kosher Anti-Semites, Spiegal, 21 April 2006
<http://www.spiegel.de/international/jewish-caricature-contest-kosher-anti-semites-a-412390.html>.
109
Ibid.
110
Ibid.
P a g e | 20
J.J. McCullough, a Canadian who used to run the website Filibuster Cartoons, highlighted the
problem with the complaints about the Mohammed cartoons in his cartoon from February 4th 2006
shown above. His note accompanying this cartoon reads in part, As you can tell from MY cartoon, I
personally find it quite ironic that the Muslims are so offended by the drawings, considering they
were, on par, considerably milder than a lot of the hateful artwork that comes out of the Arab
world."111 The cartoon also highlights the distinction between the view that any image of
Mohammed is an insult and offensive, even the cute and cuddly version shown above, and the issue
of hate speech as demonstrated by the antisemitic picture on the left.
As with the Israeli antisemitic cartoon competition, McCulloughs cartoon has also been cropped and
edited so it could be used as an antisemitic cartoon rather than as comment on antisemitic cartoons.
A copy of it can, for example, be seen on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront in a post from 2011.112
The outpouring of cartoons on Facebook

On Facebook there was an outpouring of cartoons in response to the Charlie Hebdo attack. Many of
these answered the call to publish pictures of Mohammed in defiance of the terrorists. Some
cartoons expressed criticisms of the religion of Islam, or what is presented as Islamic practise by
various Muslim countries. Also present were cartoons which attacked Muslims.
OHPI does not consider content which is critical of Islam as a religion to be hate speech. We also
dont consider criticism of what is presented as Islamic practise by various Muslim countries to be
111
Filibuster Cartoons at the Internet Archive

<https://web.archive.org/web/20070409044928/http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=2006020
4>
112
Stormfront, 9 January 2011 <https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t828565/>
P a g e | 21
hate speech. Such content, or indeed the posting of selective news articles, can become hate speech
when it is part of an overall message which aims to denigrate Muslims.
Hate speech against Muslims includes content which: dehumanizes Muslims; stereotypes all
Muslims, for example as terrorists; advocates the exclusion of Muslims from society, such as content
claiming Muslims cant be a part of society; denies human rights to Muslims; holds all Muslims
responsible for the acts of extremists; or applies a double standard to Muslim communities or
Muslim countries, for example making demands which would not be made of other countries in
similar circumstances.
The images on Facebook included a mix of content, some of which was hate speech, and some of
which was not. When hate speech and non-hate speech are mixed together in this manner, it
increases the likelihood of the hate speech becoming socially acceptable. When pages that are not
intended as hate pages post such a mixture of content, it again demonstrates a growing acceptability
of hate speech. This is what occurred in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo incident, and we hope it is a
short term reaction that soon dissipates.
We examined the postings of one page in depth. The page is not a hate page, but rather belongs to a
band. It has almost 74,000 fans. The page is not a hate page, but after a series of posts, many of
which included hate speech, the Online Hate Prevention Institute started to receive complaints from
the public about the page and requests for us to take action to have it removed. While we dont
believe the band should lose their page over this, they should remove the posts which constitute
hate speech. Failing this, Facebook itself should remove the items which constitute hate speech in
response to the reports users make about them.
RECOMMENDATION: Social media platform providers should not treat content which is merely
critical of the ideas of Islam, but does not extend to inciting hate against all people who are
Muslim, as hate speech. Platform providers should not treat mere criticism of what is presented as
Islamic practise by various Muslim countries as hate speech.
We looked at a number of the images from the page to consider whether they should be considered
hate speech.
The first is a cartoon which is critical of

what it presents as the restrictions
imposed by the culture of the Middle
East, some of which would be said to
come from Islamic religious belief. This
cartoon is a social commentary and is
not hate speech.
P a g e | 22
The second images is a meme with the

text Islam Its total bullshit. This too
is not hate. The Islam in this meme
could be replaced with any religion or
indeed any school of political thought.
IT is a direct attack on the idea, not on
the people.
The third example is a cartoon of Mohammed, holding a sword and with a jihadi headband. It
includes a quotation from the Koran about fighting and killing disbelievers. The addition of the
headband makes this a cartoon about extremists, not Muslims in general. As such it is not hate
speech.
P a g e | 23
The fourth example shows a mutilated
woman and a burnt Koran. The
accompanying text says Its okay to
burn a woman... Its heresy to burn a
book. Something wrong with your
priorities.
This is not hate speech as there is no
suggestion it is speaking about
Muslims in general. This is a comment
about people who would condone
burning a woman.
This same image could be hate speech
if it were accompanied by a comment
suggesting this was representative of
Muslims in general. Such a comment
could also come from the name of the
page which posts it. This would be hate
speech if it were posted by a page with
a name such as Muslims are evil.
The fifth image shows a woman at her closet with the

text when boys help you choose your clothes. The
follow up image is of three women wearing burkas.
This is not hate speech, and may in fact not be a
comment on Islam at all. It seems to suggest either
that boys have no fashion sense, or that they dont
want people looking at their girlfriends.
P a g e | 24
The sixth image is captioned Meanwhile

in Arabia and shows a woman in a burka
driving a red car while a man in
traditional dress is running after her
waving a sword.
This is a social critique on the fact that
women in Saudi Arabia are not permitted
to drive. It is not hate speech.
The issue has been in the news recently
after a judge ordered a case against two
women for driving be transferred to a
special terrorism court. The court case is
apparently now about online dissidence
rather than the driving offence.113
The seventh example is a cartoon

in response to the Charlie Hebdo
murders. It has a terrorist with a
smoking gun standing over the
body of a cartoonist. The terrorist
is saying he drew first to excuse
his actions.
Beyond the play on words, this
cartoon is a powerful portrayal of
the idea that words never justify
murder. This is important
commentary, and an example of
how a cartoonist could respond in
a meaningful way without
engaging in hate speech or even
offensive speech.
113
Associated Press in Dubai Two women referred to terror court for driving in Saudi Arabia, The Guardian,
26 December 2015 <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/25/women-charged-saudi-arabia-drivingban-terror-court>.
P a g e | 25
The eighth image is a form of
hate speech. It shows Muslims
protesting in the street,114 in
front of police, with the text,
Hates the West and non-Muslim
values. Moves from Islamic
Countries to the West for better
lives.
This is a comment on people, not
an idea. It makes a generalisation
about all Muslims, represented
by the crowd. It makes the false
claim that Muslims are the
other who hate us, that is the
West. This promotes the idea
that Muslims do not belong in
our society and are a threat. This
image can be best understood as
a form of xenophobia.
The ninth image is a form of

hate speech OHPI has
documented previously on a
range of anti-Muslim Facebook
pages.
It is titled Unhappy Muslims
and below a sad face lists
Muslim countries, while below
a happy face it lists Western
countries. The image is
followed by text saying that
Muslims are unhappy in
Muslim countries, but they
blame the west, and then try
and change the West to be like
the Muslim countries which
make them unhappy.
Similar to image eight, this
image is about Muslims, not
Islam, and suggests Muslims
are trying to take over society
and change its fundamental
values. It presents Muslims as
a cultural threat.
114
The image used, ironically, is of Muslims protesting against an extremist
P a g e | 26
The tenth image is another example of hate speech which speaks about Muslims rather than Islam.
The text of this image reads: When Muslims are few in number, we are from the religion of peace,
When Muslims are numerous, Islam deserves special status, When Muslims outnumber those
around them, Islam or else.
The text on this image has been circulating on another meme for some time. The other meme claims
this is part of an Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya. This is a gross misrepresentation of Taqiyya, a Shia
doctrine most Muslims will be unfamiliar with.115
The text is a form of hate speech. It suggests that Muslims in general are duplicitous and have a
hidden agenda. It is in fact a form of conspiracy theory. While some Islamist movements, like Hizb ut
Tahrir, state that their aim is to create a global caliphate, this view should not be attributed to the
Muslim community as a whole.116
115
Zulkifli, The Struggle of the Shiis in Indonesia (ANU E Press, 2013), 108-112 <http://press.anu.edu.au/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/whole.pdf>.
116
Farhan Zahid The Caliphate in South Asia: A Profile of Hizb-ut Tahrir in Pakistan, The Jamestown
Foundation, 10 July 2014
<http://www.jamestown.org/programs/tm/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=42600&cHash=840c63479602
73b28f53c542eee386ab#.VLY_uSuhx8E>.
P a g e | 27
The eleventh image is an
attack on religion as being
hypocritical and immoral. It
isnt, however, an attack on
ideas, but rather an attack
on the people who perform
religious leadership roles.
The image is hate speech as
it negatively stereotypes a
class of people on the basis
of their faith.
Had the image used people
from a range of ethnic
communities (rather than
religious groups), and
depicted them engaging in
illegal acts in respect of
which members of those
communities are
disproportionately
convicted, the nature of the
hate would perhaps be
easier to see.
The twelfth image provides a

range of crimes and says good
Muslims engage in them, and
bad Muslims dont. This is a
form of hate speech presenting
negative stereotypes of people
who are Muslim.
P a g e | 28
Image thirteen mixes a critique of
religion, with regards to Islams
opposition to homosexuality, with a
negative stereotype of Muslim men
marrying child brides, and overlays
it with a picture of a group of
Muslims. To further complicate this
image, many, but not all, of the
people appear to be from an
organised radical group (as denoted
by the headbands).
The overall impression is an
imputation that Muslims in general
are immoral and intolerant; on this
basis the image is considered antiMuslim hate speech. Had all the
people depicted clearly represented
a radical group, the image might
not be hate speech.
Image 13 is captioned Islam religion of peace and

depicts a Muslim man with a sword dripping blood
raised to strike in his one hand, and his finger
across his lips demanding silence with the other.
The image says dont say a word, everything will
be alright. Although the text refers to Islam, the
image and threat of violence clearly comes from
people. The image is hate speech suggesting
people who are Muslim are violent and will kill
those who say the wrong thing.
RECOMMENDATION: That content be considered

anti-Muslim hate speech when, for example, it:
dehumanises Muslims; stereo-types all Muslims,
for example as terrorists; advocates the exclusion
of Muslims from society, such as content claiming
Muslims cant be a part of society; denies human
rights to Muslims; holds all Muslims responsible
for the acts of extremists; or applies a double
standard to Muslim communities or Muslim
countries, for example making demands which
would not be made of other countries in similar
circumstances.
P a g e | 29
Does making Charlie Hebdo a martyr champion free speech?

As Libby Nelson explained, Charlie Hebdo was "best known for publishing cartoons mocking religion
and religious extremism, especially though not exclusively Islam, Islamic extremism, and the Prophet
Mohammed...The magazine made fun of prominent politicians, religion, and pop culture, but it
lampooned Islam and Islamic extremists with particular zeal".117 Are we making Charlie Hebdo a
martyr because they were journalists who targeted Muslims, or because we believe in championing
free speech?
In one social media thread a poster asked whether people thought the reaction would have been
different if the facts were reversed. For example, if there was a Muslim group which engaged in
stunts like burning poppies on Remembrance Day, and members of this group were then killed by
far-right extremists. Would the response be a flood of I am also Muslim today on Twitter? To
support the freedom of speech which lead to their deaths, would people advocate that everyone
engage in a mass poppy burning in solidarity?
That sort of reaction seems highly unlikely. The Je Suis Charlie movement grew out of France, out
of a culture where there is deep antagonism to public displays of religion, and strong support for
freedom of speech that ridicules religion. The movement drew on these existing prejudices and fault
lines in French society and reinforced them. There is something at least a little inappropriate about
Charlie Hebdo being turned into a martyr. That Charlie Hebdo, which went so against authority of
any sort, is to now be funded by the French tax payer is deeply ironic, but also gives rise to an issue
of state-sponsored bigotry.
Far from unity, Je Suis Charlie is cementing the divide in French society. The Education Minister,
Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, met with teaching officials after students at schools in Muslim areas
refused to participate in a minutes silence for the victims of the terror attacks; in one school 80% of
the students refused to participate.118 Does Je Suis Charlie stand for celebrating all forms of
offensive speech under a free speech principle, or is it limited to celebrating freedom for speech
which attacks religious minorities?
The student protest is deeply uncomfortable for French authorities. It is also disrespectful to those
who died, including the four Jewish victims of the kosher supermarket attack and the three dead
police officers, none of whom had anything to do with Charlie Hebdos publication decisions. The
student response, however, also carries an important message which France needs to hear. Liberty
on its own is not enough, equality and fraternity are needed too, and now more than ever.
RECOMMENDATION: That the divisiveness of Charlie Hebdo be recognised, and that it not be
made into a symbol of the ideal of free speech.
117
Libby Nelson Charlie Hebdo: its history, humor, and controversies, explained, Vox, 7 January, 2015
<http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7511001/charlie-hebdo-attack-paris>.
118
Kim Sengupta Charlie Hebdo cover: We are not Charlie say the dissenting voices angered further by French
solidarity, The Independent, 13 January 2015 <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charliehebdo-cover-we-are-not-charlie-say-the-dissenting-voices-angered-further-by-french-solidarity9976166.html>.
P a g e | 30
The Australian debate over S18C of the RDA

In light of the discussion of Freedom of Speech surrounding the Charlie Hebdo incident, some are
looking to revive the debate they lost over Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975
(Cth)(RDA) last year. Free market think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, renewed their campaign
to remove Australias laws against racial hatred in light of the Charlie Hebdo attack.119 Senator Cory
Bernardi, who has twice been relegated to the backbench over controversial comments, also
supported a re-opening of debate on S 18C.120 Australias Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson,
similarly used the Charlie Hebdo incident to renew calls to weaken the RDA.121 The Race
Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, spoke out against reopening the debate.122
In an interview on the ABC Tim Soutphommasane explained that, There's no cause for revisiting the
Racial Discrimination Act debate. We had extensive, exhaustive debate about this issue last year and
the overwhelming majority of the Australian public have made emphatically clear that the current
law should be retained. In any case, the RDA covers only the attributes of race, ethnicity, national
origin. It does not cover religion. There is complete and unfettered freedom to discuss and debate
matters of religion, religious identity, religious belief and religious practise.123 In a different
interview with ABC Radio, Prime Minister Tony Abbot said that changes to Section 18C will not be
revisited in light of events in Paris.124
While federal legislation does not cover religious bigotry, in Victoria, religious vilification is unlawful
and serious religious vilification is an offence under State law. Section 8 of the Racial and Religious
Tolerance Act makes it unlawful to incite hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or
severe ridicule of a person or class of people on the basis of their religious belief or activity.125
Section 25 makes serious religion vilification, which involves incitement to hatred combined with
threats (or incitement leading to threats by others) of harm to people or property, an offence that
can result in six months imprisonment.126 Both the public and politicians on both sides of the aisle in
Victoria support S18C of the Federal legislation as well as the state protections against religious
119
Paris massacre at Charlie Hebdo shows why RDA Section 18C must go IPA Australian Conservative, 19
January 2015 <http://australianconservative.com/2015/01/paris-massacre-at-charlie-hebdo-shows-why-rdasection-18c-must-go-%E2%80%93-ipa/>.
120
Shalailah Medhora Cory Bernardi: revisit racial insult laws after France attacks, The Guardian, 11 January,
2015 <http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jan/11/cory-bernardi-says-18c-changes-should-berevisited-following-attacks-in-france>; Lenore Taylor Cory Bernardi is predictable Abbotts response to him
isnt, The Guardian, 6 January 2015 <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/06/cory-bernardi-ispredictable-abbotts-response-to-him-isnt>.
121
Jane Norman Tim Wilson joins call for changes to discrimination laws, says Charlie Hebdo cartoons would
be banned in Australia, ABC, 13 January 2015 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-13/wilson-calls-fordiscrimination-law-changes/6013946>.
122
Ibid.
123
Brendan Trembath, Paris attacks shouldn't prompt rethink of discrimination laws: Soutphommasane, ABC,
12 January 2015 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-12/paris-attacks-shouldnt-prompt-rethinkof/6013244>.
124
Eleanore Hall Abbott and Muslim community back Charlie Hebdo's freedom of speech ABC, 14 January
2015 <http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4162006.htm>.
125
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (Vic) 2001 S 8
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/s8.html>.
126
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (Vic) 2001 S 25
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/s25.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis
/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/s25.html>.
P a g e | 31
vilification. As can be seen, the Victorian law is not about the protection of ideas, but about
vilification of people because of their religion or religious practice.
It is clear there is an inconsistency between the Commonwealths treatment, on the one hand of,
racist content, and its treatment of, on the other, bigotry against a person or group on the basis of
their religion. This should not continue, but the solution is not to remove the laws which the vast
majority of Australians believe strike the right balance between freedom of speech and the
protection of minorities. The solution is to expand Section 18C to also cover acts done on the basis
of a persons religion.
Changing the RDA to also cover bigotry on the basis of a persons religion would be straightforward
and in keeping with Australias existing international legal obligations. The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights was signed by Australia on December 18 1972 and was ratified on August 13
1980. Article 20(2) states that Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. On ratification,
Australia declared that it already had legislation in matters of practical concern related to the
article and reserved the right not to introduce any further legislative provision on these matters. A
long time has passed since 1980, and perhaps now would be a good time to review what counts as a
matter of practical concern to Australians.127
Including a provision against religious vilification in the RDA would involve a small amendment to
Section 18C(1)(b) which currently reads, the act is done because of the race, colour or national or
ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group. Once suggestion
would be to simply included the phrase religious belief or activity as appears in the Victorian
legislation. S 18D would still provide a defence for anyone acting reasonably and in good faith for
any genuine purpose in the public interest or for purposes of science, art, academia, news
coverage, or public comment on a matter of public interest. The legal meaning of offend and
insult would continue to apply. Other parts of the RDA which provide other forms of protection
might likewise be expanded, and the Act might make reference the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, to highlight the Federal Governments jurisdiction under, the External Affairs
Power, to amend the legislation in this manner.
One thing such changes wont do is make it unlawful to draw cartoons of Mohammed, provided they
are done reasonably and in good faith. At least some of dumb and nasty images Charlie Hebdo
produced would likely fall foul of such a law by failing to meet the test of reasonableness and good
faith. Other cartoons produced to add to the debate, not simply to offend as outrageously as
possible, would almost certainly be protected.
RECOMMENDATION: The Australian Parliament should consider adding the phrase religious
belief or activity to Section 18C(1)(b) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
127
CHAPTER IV Human Rights, United Nations Treaty Collection

<https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?chapter=4&src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-4&lang=en#EndDec>.
P a g e | 32
Conclusion
The French tradition of lacit, which, strictly applied, limits religion to the private sphere, is one
approach to ensuring social harmony. A better approach, and one adopted in Australia, is to
inclusively celebrate diversity. We do this with both culture and religion. We need to treat attacks
on minorities in society as attacks on the fundamental values of our society as a whole.
We need to recognise the role that antisemitism has played in the attacks in France. We need to
recognise that here in Australia there have also been efforts to blur the lines and make certain kinds
of antisemitism appear publicly acceptable. The Jewish community, politicians, and police are awake
to such risks. To truly protect society, there needs to also be more engagement on the problem of
antisemitism by organisations in the human rights space, and better understanding of the issue of
antisemitism by other segments of the community, including other ethnic and religion groups. The
problem of antisemitism, particularly as it is propagated through social media, is directly related to
the problem of self radicalisation of Muslim youth and the self radicalisation of others on the far
right. This is a problem for all of us.
In this report we have discussed the line between free speech and hate speech. Our freedom
requires that the law of the land take precedence over religious doctrines. Our freedom requires
that religion itself be open to challenge and criticism. Our freedom also requires us to ensure people
can practice their religion, and openly identify with it, without fear of persecution or discrimination.
Ideas, including religion, should be open for debate and critique. Attacks on human dignity should be
prohibited. Much of the anti-Muslim content appearing in social media is not about ideas, but about
attacking the human dignity of a group of people. It just happens that the group is defined by their
religion. We need to better tackle this problem.
An Australia based on multiculturalism and a fair go for all is an Australia where people stand
together when part of the community is attacked. The Muslim community stood with the ethnic
communities of Australia in defending Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in 2014. They did
this, despite the fact that discrimination on the basis of religion, such as Islam, is not protected
under the Act. In 2015 it may be time to stand with the Muslim community and extend the
protection of Section 18C, always subject to the explicit protection of Freedom of Speech encoded in
S 18D, to this part of the Australian community as well.

Je Suis Humain: Responsible Free Speech in The Shadow of The Charlie Hebdo Murders

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Je Suis Humain: Responsible Free Speech in The Shadow of The Charlie Hebdo Murders

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

306 Hawthorn Road,

Caulfield S. Vic. 3162

Copyright 2015 Online Hate Prevention Institute

Published in Melbourne by:

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry

2015 Online Hate Prevention Institute

About the Online Hate Prevention Institute

About the Author, Dr Andre Oboler

The Cover Art

Limited License to Reproduce this Report

Online hate is a growing threat to society.

Attacking the Jews: Antisemitisms role in the attacks

Antisemitism as a step to radicalisation

David Greenberg, The roots of Arab Anti-Semitism, Slate, 31 October 2001

The French Medias response to the attacks

French history of political satire

Charlie Hebdo and the concept of lacit

The response of the media outside France

The Je Suis meme in social media

Je Suis Citoyen Du Monde

Alessio Viola, Twitter, 11 January 2015

The Islamic view of drawing Mohammed

Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103, [263] <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html>.

When is a cartoon of Mohammed hate speech?

The outpouring of cartoons on Facebook

Filibuster Cartoons at the Internet Archive

The first is a cartoon which is critical of

The second images is a meme with the

The fifth image shows a woman at her closet with the

The sixth image is captioned Meanwhile

The seventh example is a cartoon

The ninth image is a form of

The image used, ironically, is of Muslims protesting against an extremist

The twelfth image provides a

Image 13 is captioned Islam religion of peace and

RECOMMENDATION: That content be considered

Does making Charlie Hebdo a martyr champion free speech?

The Australian debate over S18C of the RDA

CHAPTER IV Human Rights, United Nations Treaty Collection

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen