“It is difficult to give a definite assessment. Naturally, any form of terrorism should be convicted and severely punished”, so responded Director of “Partnership for Democracy” Center Stepan Danielyan, in response to the question of Aravot.am as to how he will assess the incident against Charlie Hebdo satirical weekly in Paris, and whether it was a move against freedom of expression.
Referring to the limits of freedom of expression, Mr. Danielyan said, “If we estimate only the issue of limits of freedom of expression without focusing on the original fact of terrorism, which, I repeat, is a convicted and unacceptable deed, then the right to freedom of expression is already restricted by the law. For instance, the Criminal Code prohibits and punishes preaching religious and racial hatred, interracial enmity, call for war, people’s humiliation and so on. Whether the weekly has gone beyond the limits or not, it is already a matter of legal dispute. Some caricatures do really go beyond the limits and not only in terms of Islam but other religions and not just in terms of religions.”
Mr. Danielyan sees a delicacy in this matter. “The French claim that caricatures are involved in their cultural traditions, and France is one of the most popular countries in the world, but the French have already started to realize, and this case will help to better realize that France is no longer a homogenous country. There are millions of Muslims living here who have a different culture, with which, willy-nilly, they have to take into account. This is the reality. And it refers not only to France, but also Spain, Italy, Sweden, Belgium and so on. This is a new situation, which implies compromising with this phenomenon, I say again, willy-nilly.”
To the question of how he treats the caricatures on religion subjects, Mr. Danielyan responded, “This is a complex matter. There are similar cases at the European Court of Human Rights, which creates precedents, but much depends on the interpretation of the law, in which political and social situations are also taken into account. This case will have its impact on the development of regulatory approaches. The European science has much talked about the Islam, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries, there were many critical books and studies, but none of the authors was subjected to terror, perhaps, the tone and the intention of mere insulting is significant.” According to Stepan Danielyan, any religion can be criticized, even present well-grounded accusations, however, apparently, there should be a limit.
Read also
To our next question of whether there is a threat to Armenian media, especially when there are so many caricatures published in our newspapers, Mr. Danielyan replied, “There have always been terrorisms against journalists in Armenia, though not so bloody. It is not always that the journalists were correct, but lynching should be excluded, there are courts for such cases, which, on the other hand, do not deserve the trust by the majority of the public. It is also a serious problem. Evidently, there are publications breaking all standards for specific religious matters, but they continue their activities with no punishment. That is our reality, too.”
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
