We have been bombarded by the terrorism news since
a long while, but every new episode seems to cause the very same dismay and
powerless feeling. What I don’t understand is why some of them get more media’s
– as well as world community’s – attention, importance and consternation than
others. I am not suggesting that those
that get more audience should have less. I am just trying to figure out why we
tend to “value” some in a higher extent. Would it be the city where it happens?
Would it be the type of society hit by it? Would it be due to a personal
connection? Would certain people suffer less than others? Would pain have
different meaning for different people?
December 16th, 2014: Peshawar
school, in Pakistan, is a victim of a terrorist attack, leaving 141 dead, 132
of them children.
January 7th, 2015: office of the
Charlie Hebdo magazine, France, is attacked by 3 terrorists, leaving 12 dead.
Sympathies aside, it is possible that some
people have not heard of the first happening in Pakistan, reinforcing my
concerns.
Nothing justifies a terrorist attack, regardless
its magnitude. What happened in these two episodes, as well as all the others
that happen every single day around the globe, should be repudiated by all
means. All the worldwide support Charlie Hebdo magazine has been receiving is
touching and it shows that – perhaps – there are more people out there willing
to defend a non-violent society than those who perpetrates violence.
One thing that I would like to bring here
regarding the whole Charlie Hebdo happening is the following: as heinous as the
events are (and there is no shadow of doubts they really are), it bothers me to
see the interpretation society gives to freedom of speech and freedom of
expression. Freedom implies responsibility and – in my point of view – the
respect for differences should come first than my right to say or do whatever I
feel like. Let me explain:
i)
Brazil recently witnessed some of its
Southern people posting deeply offensive things in their facebook pages
regarding their Northern countrymen, either because a Southern soccer team lost
a match for a Northern one, or because the elected president had a higher
support from people in the Northeast. These people were legally tracked and
some of them were formally prosecuted;
ii)
Saying that a person is not welcomed due to
the color of their skin is a crime and will, most certainly, be punished. This
is officially called racism;
iii)
Homophobia and Anti-Semite expressions are hatred
crimes, which are not tolerated by society nowadays
Would one have the right to advocate that these
people are just exercising their right of free speech or freedom of expression?
Satire can indeed be funny, but to whom? I love satire too, but the problem is
when it becomes offensive and disrespectful. The main point is that most of the
times we don’t know/realize when it becomes offensive if we are not emotionally
involved in the addressed theme. When it comes to people’s creeds, beliefs and
faiths this may lead to inflammatory resentment levels. Among other published things
by Charlie Hebdo and taking just one cartoon as an example, using the word “shit”
while referring to the Quran may sound funny for just a few.
Respecting differences (no matter where they
come from) is a way to look for peace in a world so thirsty for wars.
