After the January terrorist attacks in France, the world is once again debating where the line lies between protecting the feelings of believers and ensuring freedom of speech. As often happens, as the tragedy is forgotten, the voice of conservatives accusing cartoonists of blasphemy becomes more confident. Three weeks after the massacre of French journalists, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia called the Charlie Hebdo magazine's publications "an insult", not only to Muslims, but also to Christians. At the same time, the results of a new sociological study conducted by VTsIOM became known: in this matter, the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church is supported by the majority of citizens of our country.

Public opinion polls do show that more than half of our compatriots believe that the terrorist attacks were provoked by France's press policy (25%) or by journalists themselves (30%). The number of supporters of" pure " freedom of speech is about 8%. It is interesting that their closest associates are nationalists: those who believe that terrorism is explained by migration, and not by the" blasphemy " of the victims – 11%.

Summarizing the results of the survey, we can say that the opinion of 55% of Russians corresponds to the pathos of Patriarch Kirill: "Freedom ends where human ugliness begins, where vulgarity begins, where debauchery begins, where the destruction of human moral norms begins." At the same time, the condemnation of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad by Russian society does not look as unanimous as the reaction of the establishment. Among domestic system politicians, no one spoke out in support of freedom of speech, but Roskomnadzor issued warnings to a number of media outlets for reprinted images. Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of Chechnya, got into a verbal battle, comparing the defense of cartoons to turning a speaker into an enemy of Islam.

The conservative reaction of the Russian authorities is by no means unexpected, since they behaved exactly the same way during the previous cartoon scandal – in 2006. Then the Russian Foreign Ministry categorically condemned the publication of satirical images and a number of media outlets were warned for their republication. And yet, in 2006, there was no talk of murder. Due to this circumstance, the position of the Russian authorities could have become softer, but it did not.

It is indisputable that, as in 2006, so now the reaction of the Russian authorities to caricature scandals has a foreign policy dimension, suggesting rapprochement with Muslim states and opposition to the West. It is interesting that on this path the Kremlin has an unexpected like – minded person-the Pope of Rome. Having begun his pontificate with social and liberal rhetoric, the head of all Catholics suffered a sensitive defeat at the Synod on Family Affairs in October 2014. Since then, Pope Francis has sought to make amends to conservatives, which may have determined the tone of his statements on the cartoon scandal.

Returning from one of the most conservative Catholic countries, the Philippines, the pontiff unexpectedly touched upon the topic of his personal attitude to provocative satire.: "Freedom of speech exists, but if my friend Gasbarri (a Vatican official) says a dirty word about my mother, he will get punched." Soon after, the pope developed his idea: "I can't provoke and humiliate a person on a regular basis, because I run the risk that they will get angry and I will face an inappropriate reaction." It turned out that the Vatican is ready to admit that the murder of cartoonists did not happen from scratch.

A curious consequence of the pope's speech was an act of self-censorship committed by the Jesuit publication Etudes: journalists removed from their website a reprint of Charlie Hebdo cartoons on Catholic themes. Meanwhile, the position of the head of the Church was not only supported, but also developed by the Archbishop of Toulon Dominique Rae, who declared the existence of"verbal, moral, intellectual and artistic forms of violence." According to the prelate, with its cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad and the Virgin Mary, Charlie Hebdo opened the way for a "new iconoclasm".

It can be stated that for the Holy See, in addition to the opposition to radical Islam, the theme of the general opposition to secularists related to the era of the atheist threat is still relevant. In this respect, Catholics did not feel justified in completely dissociating themselves from the fury of the followers of the Prophet Muhammad. Archbishop Andre Vin-Troyes of Paris said: "We cannot always demand that honest, law-abiding Muslims prove that they are not fanatics." The prelate emphasized that the adherents of Islam in his diocese send their children to Catholic schools, because they feel that there is still a place for faith in God in these educational institutions.

In this situation, only Protestants, in particular Anglicans and followers of the Dalai Lama, allowed themselves to close their ranks with supporters of freedom of speech. Both of them limited themselves to condemning the terrorist acts that took place, without trying to find fault with the victims. However, solidarity with the authors of anti-religious cartoons was also difficult for these representatives of generally recognized religious organizations: their comments were very brief.

Permanent link to this publication: