Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/444527
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 11 JANUARY 2015 Opinion 16 Opinion 'Je suis Charlie?', eh? You're I t's a strange day, when so many people express horror at the murder of 10 journalists in Paris last Wednesday… in a country where the same journalists would almost certainly have been arrested – possibly even imprisoned – over the exact same issue. OK, I put in 'almost certainly' and 'possibly' there, because that's what the law says, and the police consistently argue that they have no option but to 'investigate all crimes and take action where necessary'. Whether they would have actually arrested the staff of Charlie Hebdo for consistent violation of Article 163 (b) of Malta's Criminal Code, however, is another question. So, too, is what might have happened as a result. In any case, here it is: the article of law that makes common criminals of the same people we (rightly) laud as heroes and mart yrs to the cause of freedom of expression. "Whosoever by words, gestures, written matter, whether printed or not, or pictures or by some other visible means, publicly vilifies the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion which is the religion of Malta… shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from one to six months." In case you think I'm using this as a pretext to knock the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion, the next paragraph reads: "Whosoever commits any of the acts referred to in the last preceding article against AN Y CULT TOLERATED BY LAW, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from one to three months." Last I looked, Islam qualifies as a 'cult tolerated by law' in Malta. So the local authorities would be legally compelled to make arrests over every single edition of Charlie Hebdo to ever poke satirical fun – often very provocatively – at religions, including both Catholicism and Islam (not to mention Judaism, etc). If the 'Je Suis Charlie' mantra were to be taken literally, we'd all be either in court or in jail by now. But no matter: it's not meant to be taken literally. Otherwise, we'd all be dead. As things turned out, the consequences for those journalists – and two policeman, and the victims of any future spin-off attacks – were slightly more serious than a three-month sojourn in Kordin's Division One. Apart from the cost in human life, last Wednesday's attack has also turned up the pressure valve insofar as fears of an 'inevitable' clash of cultures are concerned. Perhaps it's my perception, but I detect a moment of intense historical significance occurring right now: as though much of our future peace of mind hinges on how we collectively react to this single incident today. In a sense I am reminded of a solitary scene in Spike Lee's 1992 movie 'Malcolm X' – also set against the backdrop of a pivotal, touch-and-go historical moment – where the eponymous US black civil rights activist, played by Denzel Washington, suddenly finds himself face to face with a young, white female universit y student. "Is there anything white people like myself, who sympathise with your cause, can do to help?" she asks (I paraphrase from memory). "No," he answers without any hesitation whatsoever; then turns on his heels and walks away. That scene has always disconcerted me slightly. At face value, his reply may just have been a brutally honest acknowledgement of the futilit y of any single individual "doing anything" in such complex circumstances. On another level, he could have just been telling her: "This is not your fight. We don't need your help. Now run along and hand in that assignment…" But as the entire film is ultimately an exploration of racism and its effects on people, the likeliest interpretation is far more worrying. There was "nothing" that girl, or anyone like her, could possibly have done, because – being white – she was herself viewed as part of the problem. Not by all black people at the time, certainly (Martin Luther King would most likely have given a different answer); but by at least one faction of "the other side". The implications are sinister, and extend far beyond the individual prejudices explored in this film. It matters not how you think or what you feel: the colour of your skin (in this case – it could be religion or political affiliation in any other) automatically casts you in the role of adversary… and there's nothing you can do to change it. That, at any rate, is the mental image I came away with: and a powerful, disturbing image Raphael Vassallo Last Wednesday's attack has also turned up the pressure valve insofar as fears of an 'inevitable' clash of cultures are concerned Clockwise from top left: Editor Stephane Charbonnier, Georges Wolinski, Bernard Verlhac, Bernard Maris, Michel Renaud, Jean Cabut and Philippe Honoré, seven of the 12 victims