Ladies and gentlemen, Hounerable delegates of UNESCO. While preparing for this event I asked myself a seemingly obvious question: Am I first a human, do I first share common biology or first one of the great revelry of identities assigned to me by other humans? It may seem shocking, that the latter in fact seemed to hold more personal value. I choose to be defined by a few of these definitions. I self inflict a wound upon a scar. I, not society values it. With this in mind I believe that the great freedoms afforded to cartoonists reflect a broader paradigm, one that simultaneously preaches to us from almost divine moral heavens and perpetuates a system that holds myself, my peers, my family, my community, and many of you by the throat 

It does I acknowledge  seem hypocritical of me to be literally standing on a platform that is allowed for by a lack of censorship and talk in support of it, my attack is therefore not on the paradox I have just mentioned,  indeed it is only human nature to hold conflicting ideals at the same time, rather on the intrinsic values and consequences of allowing the voices of cartoonists to reign free, without limits. Now that we have established a characterisation, or for those in the legal field a disclaimer I hope that you will give me an opportunity to continue. 

We are all aware of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, a disgusting reflection of the fundamentalism we are here to combat. We can all certainly agree on that, that we all here hold a similar goal, and value peace and security in this regard?  For context, the magazine published a cartoon satirising the final Islamic prophet Muhammad, their offices where in turn attacked by armed gunmen. Naturally, this cannot be justified, I would nonetheless like to propose that  total freedom of expression by cartoonists  is similarly unjust. For most people, for large parts of the population this was not merely the loss of innocent life, but more so a direct assault against democracy and the freedom of expression of cartoonists.  In other words an unnecessary expression of belief on the part of the attackers. If we are so quick to (albeit it rightfully) to condemn these actions, why are we not so when the values attacked are not our own? We should not stratify morality, thus other unnecessary expressions of belief should equally so be limited. Using Charlie Hebdo as an example, was it required, was it valuable to satirise the final Islamic prophet? We consider free speech divine enough to sacrifice ourselves for, fight wars in Iraq for, protest for in Hong Kong for. We perhaps do not expect to die for it where it is protected, where it exists already as an established norm, but most certainly where it is vulnerable we are well prepared to fight for it. In the same way this is true, dehumanising the values of a minority religion, one that people will die for where it is  vulnerable and repressed, is wrong. This cartoon was birthed into a France that was committing human rights atrocities or at least supporting them against Muslim groups, militant, civilian, academic or otherwise abroad and was actively repressing freedoms domestically/ _.  In this Charlie Hebdo cartoon, was this dehumanisation required? The prophet, barring the idea’s that any representation is wrong as is believed by some, is positioned as an authoritarian figure, this is evident from his diction: Punishment by lashing, however the cross eyes, out of proportion nose and slanted posture as ridiculous. Thus a caricature of the modern Middle Eastern Dictator. The cartoon thus seems to imply that authoritarian regimes are analogous to divine figures, not only does this align with their propaganda currently but a quick historical reading reveals that prior to a series of revolutions most Middle Eastern dictators where aggressively secular, region and for many  in the Middle East Islam acted more so as a social vehicle to encourage revolution liberally democratic in some cases. Was there a valid purpose therefore to inciting outrage? Given the conext? s/_ Cartoons thus are not devoid of social context.  In other words satire and irony loose their value when the target is not a powerful social institution. 

They are a part of systems, often they are the most aggressive aspect of these systems. When cartoonists attack minority or repressed groups and their values  without clear reason, fundamentalists and nationalists from those groups are incited and given an excuse to create violence, and more material for their propaganda and people like me, who are not entirely attached to these social identifies, hesitantly, feel the need to protect ourselves, defend these identifies and are thus forced into catagories created for us. 

Cartoonists demand equality, that we respect their rights. That as a consequence of their ( and I will not dispute this) importance, and even critical role in society as social commenters, and storytellers that they should be excused from the norms of narrative. Should they be? In particular when the narratives they portray are unnecessary expressions of fear, anger and hate?  We cannot afford, in a world already ridden with inequality and unfairly privileged groups to create another one. Another political elite, protected from any criticism, shielded from accountability. We owe it to the world, to cartoonists who create cartoons, that we can create a new paradigm. One in which powerful tools are not forced into a binary of destruction or complete dominance, but democratic participation as a part of public dialogue and its associated progress.