The world is rightly outraged by the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo. There have been hundreds of commentaries. The West has predictably cast this in terms of freedom of speech and this is certainly an important aspect that should not be ignored. And, of course, terrorism is a global problem that the world should unite to fight. But to me these are not necessarily the most important aspects of the tragedy.

What struck me most was the similarity of the thought processes of the murderers and their victims. Both held their values to be so absolute that it justified anything. The fact that the terrorists had a completely mistaken interpretation of Islam is beside the point. The point is that they believed in it; believed in it as fervently as the cartoonists believed in their right to freedom of expression.

Both were wrong. I am not arguing that there is a moral equivalency between the terrorists and the cartoonists; clearly there is none. Nothing justifies murder. But is it right to constantly lampoon a religion? I do not often agree with Dr Mahathir, but he got it absolutely right when he said that killing is wrong and so is insulting someone else’s religion.

When the news broke, I conducted a very unscientific and somewhat mischievous experiment. An American friend posted an article on the attack on Charlie Hebdo on his Facebook page. I commented that the modes of thought of both sides was similar. The response was as I expected. The westerners were outraged. Many posts condemned me. There is no one as rabid and intolerant as a liberal in full bray in defence of liberalism. Ironic, no? They didn’t seem to think so.

I chuckled to myself and then pointed out that even from the point of view of freedom of expression, a double standard was at play. France, like many other European countries, has laws against the denial of the holocaust. When the law was challenged on the grounds that it infringed freedom of expression, the UN Human Rights Committee held that it was justifiable as necessary to counter anti-Semitism. Even the US prohibits hate speech.

Then ensured radio silence – no sight, no sound. It was amusing but the larger point, which the Americans and Europeans who responded to me didn’t or refused to understand, is a serious one. This is not just about tolerance or respecting other religions, but something far more fundamental.

Again somewhat ironically it is the central argument of a western political philosopher, Isaiah Berlin, whom I think is not much read today in the West. And this is simply that there not only one Good but multiple Goods and that these often contradict each other and so cannot be simultaneously realised. Something for Singaporeans to think about as they complain about columbariums, foreign workers or whatever.

Bilahari Kausikan is currently Ambassador-at-Large and Policy Advisor in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). He is the former Permanent Secretary of the MFA (2010 - 2013).

Top photo from here.

Like what you read? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to stay updated.