The story of Raif Badawi from Saudi Arabia went viral in the social media. However, despite the macabre punishment inflicted on Badawi, his story attracted more attention on the social networks than the published media.
Badawi was condemned to 1,000 strokes for defiling Islam. They were not to be given to him at once otherwise he would have definitely died in the course of the flogging. Thus, he was to be flogged at intervals of 50 strokes each.
The sentence is unacceptable for three reasons. First, already back in the eighteenth century, Cesare Beccaria in his famous book DEI DELITTI E DELLE PENE wrote that corporal punishments and the use of torture should stop. They are not acceptable as punishment for any crime (presumed or real). Secondly, resorting to torture (finally 1,000 strokes are physical torture) for what a State may consider as a religious offence is a travesty of religion itself. Religions speak about "mercy" more than anything else. Thirdly, while I am for the legal protection of believers, Badawi did not offend the sentiments of others or those of the Muslim believers.
More importantly, this story confirms once again an important dictum in the media. What makes news is not the news value per se, nor how sensational is the story but the vested interests hovering in the background.
The fact that the religion was Islam should have made the story more palpable to the media. Yet, still, the established media failed, in my opinion to give it the deserved importance. Perhaps the reason (or part of the reason) for all this is the fact that the state concerned is Saudi Arabia and the West has been in alliance with this State for decades.
In 2002, a terrible event happened in Saudi Arabia. A girls' school in Mecca was gutted by fire. The female pupils started running out of school, some forgetting to put their veil or Hijab on. The religious police intervenedand stopped the young girls from leaving the school and the male fire fighters from intervening because these girls were not wearing correct Islamic dress. 17 died or better still were burned alive, because of the fire. No one in Europe spoke out. The same happened regarding Badawi's case. On the contrary, to safeguard our economic interests, we ended up honouring the Royal family ofSaudi Arabia. We are more interested in accommodating the Saudi dictators ,than speaking out when we should.
When Arab Christians are attacked in the Middle East, and Christian women taken as sex slaves and males barbarically beheaded or hanged, very few bat an eyelid in the West. Here in the West, we are only interested when the plea of Western citizens is concerned. France and Italy intervened (and rightly so) in favour of their abducted citizens.
But these events do not justify policies of disrespect towards religions, as some started to advocate after the Paris massacre. In so doingthe State will be only compounding hatred. Demonizing Islam or any other religion will not solve the problem. Indeed faith will become stronger. It is up to the secular state not to start appearingfundamentalist. As I predicted in one of my previous articles,A Successful Terrorist Attack, French society is now debating liberty of expression. Moreover, the BBC news has published the conclusions of the Economist Intelligence Unit of the UK wherein it is being stated that the traditional political parties in Europe will cease to think in terms of left and right. We,in Europe,will see the growth of political allegiances, which were unthinkable in the past. The parties of the centre are in a quandary how to react to the advance of populism. I think that the French politiciansareunderstanding this scenario very well. They are starting to realize that their past cultural policies were leading in the wrong direction making their laicite appear fundamentalist and harmful to the Secular State.
Even the Grand March of Paris was not without its political symbolism and controversies. It was called a march for the republic. In reality, it was a march in favour of the French Socialist Party. It was not a coincidence that it was held at Place de la Republique in Paris. Place de la Republique is the place where the French left holds its political gatherings. The centre right party holds them in Place de la Concorde, the big square at the beginning of Champs des Elysees, where Louis XVI was guillotined. But then, in Iran, an effigy of Sarkozy (and not of Hollande) was burnt in reaction to the Charlie Hebdo's publication of images of the Prophet Mohammed.
As was rightly noticed by Romano Prodi, when interviewed about this terrorists attack, he clearly stated that if the Israeli-Palestine problem is not solved, the conflict of civilisation will continue. The West should stop closing its eyes to what is happening in Israel. On my part, I was not impressed by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Despite the fact that heads of state were in a restricted group, Netanyahu was still allowed to have his bodyguards behind him. Was he afraid of being attacked from other heads of state? Even his physical emotions betrayed him. His look and moving eyes showed that he was preoccupied and not at all at ease, as though he was afraid. At least, Netanyahu took up the challenge. The American President and the vice- President declined to attend for security reasons.
Then, this week we also had another story, which shows that even we, in Malta, have our own challenges where liberty is concerned. An educational officer ended up languishing in jail for more than a week after telling Judge Lofaro that he wouldsleep on her doorstep if he is evicted from the matrimonial home. The judge took this as a threat. He has already spent more than a week in jail. Then, when the magistrate was to hear his case, the prosecuting officer failed to appear in court because of an exam. The liberty of a person is, in our new modern state, less important than an exam of a prosecuting officer! This case should be an eye opener for those who think that our judges and judicial system are Malta's salvation. Like France and Saudi Arabia, we have our own bizarre cases.
They are not extremists as those of Saudi Arabia but as used to happen with Religious power, when a state or a judicial system starts applying a rigid or a simplistic approach to justice, it will be only expressing insecurity. Thus cognition ceases to follow logic and the forces of power will stop being exonerated. At this point the system starts clashing with the concepts of liberty and society stops distinguishing between rational criticism and ordinary or intended insults or threats. Offensive insults operate in a logic, which is not acceptable to society. Rational criticism helps society to rebrand itself. When what is said or written does not fit the presumed social context, it will be taken as a personal insult or threat. In other words, judges can end up becoming pocket dictators, when they mistake rational criticism for insults or threats. Judges have no leeway to misunderstand, otherwise they ought not to be in the post!