“Show religious caricatures to students? We cannot be satisfied with repeating this martial slogan "

Doctor of political philosophy, author of

Leo Strauss, political philosopher

In the aftermath of Samuel Paty's assassination, intellectuals suggested, and politicians announced, the responses they deemed most appropriate.

One of them consisted in disseminating as much as possible, in public places, in transport or in classrooms, a certain number of caricatures.

Each school was thus promised to send a book devoted to them.

Three reasons have been put forward in favor of this measure.

First, by universally exhibiting these cartoons in school grounds, it would no longer be possible for Islamist fanatics to designate teachers or particular individuals.

Faced with this massive and fully assumed expression of republican freedom, fanatics would even be dissuaded from asserting respect for their Law or their God at school.

Another reason would be of the order, almost martial, of the response: to the intimidation which the fanatics intend to exert on the content and the organization of republican education, we should proudly oppose our unwavering attachment to freedom.

The last reason would be educational: it would be to educate about freedom of expression.

This last reason deserves our attention.

With such a booklet, what should the teacher say?

Imagine that the school books promised by the region presidents contain religious caricatures.

Let us imagine that we will find there caricatures of Mohammed, assorted, for good measure, with caricatures of the Pope, Jesus or Moses.

With such a booklet, what should the teacher say?

What should be the subject of his speech?

Will he have to say: "See freedom of expression at work: in its most frank, and even the most abrupt forms, it implies the possibility of offending and hurting, of laughing at the expense of this? that some people consider to be holy and sacred things.

Cultures, peoples, traditions - anything can be made fun of.

And those who are hurt by it must learn to accept it as a rule of the Republican game ”?

Or will it be necessary to say: "See and admire the spirit of freedom which respects nothing and no one: this is how one is free from the dark ages."?

Or will it be necessary, in a more circumspect way, to show the difference between a mocking caricature and an infamous caricature, a harmless derision and a direct insult?

But then, will things be very simple?

In the columns of Le Figaro, Jacques de Saint Victor assured us that French law was suitable for removing any ambiguity: legally, religious conscience is only affected when the authorities obstruct the practice of worship, and not when a religious dogma is criticized or even mocked.

As for freedom of expression, it cannot find a limit in the injury it can cause, because such a principle would by definition be at the discretion of the injured - which in the long term would lead to ever greater censorship, justified in name of the susceptibility of each.

All right, but if my religious conscience orders me to respect the law and the word of God, and the institution to which I entrust my child supposes and defends principles opposed to this law and to this word, cannot I say reached in this consciousness?

And if freedom of expression is limited by the prohibition of insulting, and that insult is legally defined as an outrageous or contemptuous expression, isn't everyone's susceptibility already recognized by this aspect of the law?

We must not compromise with the aims of the Republican school.

But is it relevant to defend freedom of expression there by its most sensitive moral aspect, and by its most difficult legal aspect?

It seems to me that these questions are all the more difficult to deal with as our children, henceforth, clearly know only one moral imperative: that of not discriminating.

Thus the exposition of caricatures explicitly targeting religious symbols cannot fail, in my opinion, to surprise and even shock the idea that the pupils have not of the law of God, but of moral duty.

I suppose that it is precisely on this point that the educational discourse should intervene.

But is it essential to venture there, especially with a fighting spirit?

It is obvious that all the obstacles placed on the freedom to teach history, literature, science or philosophy must be the object of rapid and solemn reactions on the part of the administration.

It is obvious that we must not compromise with the aims of the Republican school.

But is it relevant to defend freedom of expression there by its most sensitive moral aspect, and by its most difficult legal aspect? Is it also wise to push the identification of the republic with religious caricature to such an extent, when it is precisely this identification that our enemies construct and agitate in order to make us hate better? Let us rather rejoice at the significant change in the last presidential speeches. Without sacrificing any of our principles, they give a more reasonable image of our republic.