'Charlie Hebdo' and Lang’ata Road – different, but related
What you need to know:
- French comedian Dieudonne M'bala M’bala has been arrested and is facing serious charges for what has been defined as “glorifying terrorism”.
- In Langata, security agents used unjustified force in the face of a justified plea.
- We think we can resolve all problems with a new law, but it does not work this way.
January 2015 has been shaped by two different events for two different reasons, two different countries and two different philosophies. Yet they both produced the same sadness.
The first event, which was the Charlie Hebdo attack, happened in France, and we wrote about it last week. We said that murder was not justified by any standard. Yet, freedom and responsibility always walk hand in hand.
Charlie Hebdotaught us that abusing freedom is self-destructive and irrational.
Like any other freedom, freedom of expression, media and information must have boundaries. Those boundaries are demarcated by reason, and the freedom and dignity of others, for no one on earth is entitled to insult, scorn, blaspheme, trample or mock the faith or values of citizens and communities, and no one is entitled to kill anybody for trespassing those boundaries.
Charlie Hebdotaught us that abusing freedom turns us into intolerant beasts. This is one of the greatest pitfalls of today’s radical liberalism, which says that "everyone must believe what I believe, or else you ought to die, be jailed or ostracised".
The greatest proof that freedom of expression is not absolute was inspired by the same France that shouted “Je suis Charlie”. French comedian Dieudonne M'bala M’bala has been arrested and is facing serious charges for what has been defined as “glorifying terrorism”.
TERRORIST PARANOIA
If convicted, Dieudonne may spend up to seven years in jail and pay a fine of more than half a million Kenyan shillings. Dieudonne is not alone, as 53 others have also been arrested and similarly charged.
Freedom of expression is not as absolute as some may have thought, at least not everywhere, and M’bala M’bala may learn the lesson Charlie Hebdo did not learn.
The second event happened in Nairobi at the Langata Road Primary School. The use of force forced children to cry; their playground was grabbed and they were tear-gassed. We all cried with them. Security agents used unjustified force in the face of a justified plea.
Today’s terrorist paranoia is increasing the cost of freedom. It is as if any demonstration, no matter how small the number and age of citizens, must be immediately quashed and crushed at any cost.
TWO DIFFERENT SOCCER TEAMS
These two events, Charlie Hebdo and Langata Road, display the drama in which our modern society is wrapped up, the limits on freedom of expression and the fear of insecurity.
It has taken centuries and rivers of blood to gain the freedoms and liberties modern constitutions have conceived. Did we go too far in prescribing such freedoms? Is freedom dangerous? Self-destructive? Sustainable?
The slogan “Je suis Charlie” advocated for an absolute freedom of expression on one hand and for stringent security measures on the other. These two postulates are contradictory in themselves.
Stringent security measures and freedom of expression play on two different soccer teams. They are not compatible.
Unrestrained freedom of expression may expose security, and excess security undermines freedom of expression. It is a delicate balance, and the courts in Kenya are now at the helm of this dilemma.
REACTIONARY LAWS
Charlie Hebdo’smassacre, like our own massacres, has triggered a sense of helplessness, fear and despair. We have gone into a craze where we have to choose either freedom or security.
Nowadays, most countries are reactionary in their law making. We think we can resolve all problems with a new law. But it does not work this way. Reactionary laws are usually complex, rushed and risky for social development.
Last December, Kenya dived deeply into changing its security laws. The Security Laws (Amendment) Act, which touched the form and substance of 21 other laws, is currently under court scrutiny. Justice Odunga suspended eight sections until the matter is finally decided in the coming weeks.
Kenya is not alone in this mad rush for new security laws. Several other countries have also plunged themselves into security reforms, including France, Egypt, Australia and Cameroon.
SHIFTING BALANCE
According to the Huffington Post, the French government is writing broader new laws on phone-tapping and other intelligence to fight terrorism. It is also launching a deeper project to rethink France's education system, urban policies and a social integration model, in an apparent recognition that last week's attacks exposed deeper problems about inequality in France.
The new Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act provides immunity against prosecution to the Australian Intelligence Service if they carry out a crime in the course of performing “special operations”. Such protection is not extended to certain serious crimes.
The new Australian law also grants officers the power to access computers, computer systems and networks, and it increases penalties for intelligence officers who share information about secret operations without authorisation.
The situation has turned so delicate that the Australian prime minister said last October, when the laws were introduced, that “regrettably, the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift.”
Cameroon also passed their anti-terror legislation late last year. It has put media freedom in jeopardy with a rather broad definition of terrorism that subjects anyone, including journalists, to possible trial by a military court.
UNTESTED NEW LAWS
Already a few journalists have been arrested and two of them were charged in military courts. In Cameroon, authors are individually and criminally liable for supposed utterances calculated to promote or condone terrorist acts.
After every serious terror attack, the law changes. Little has been done in the world to analyse the impact of these new laws and their effectiveness in preventing further terrorist crimes.
Human malice is so powerful and twisted that we may never be able to stop its destructive power, and a change in the law is not the whole solution but just a small part of it.
As time goes on, the government digs deeper into citizens’ rights, privacy and freedom of expression, and here is where security and freedom clash. This is where governments become hypersensitive, with a tendency to overreact, making use of exaggerated force, even on children. Charlie Hebdo leads to Langata Road, and we may never know who really was behind both events.
Dr Franceschi is the dean of Strathmore Law School. [email protected], Twitter:@lgfranceschi
