Citizen Journalism, Local Context, Fear

Some of us reacted to France's Law in Project, endangering CJ. In other NP articles, we tried to nuance this idea, suggesting we could be wrong. Today, we wish to detail our thoughts and highlight the importance of "local context". We will attempt describing a singular sign of the times: "Mixed Borders". Mixed Borders is an expression is heard in the mouthes of botanists. It describes a garden with no delimitations between plants, trees, flowers. They all share the same space. They form one entity. They obey to one aesthetical rule and desire.

Why compare the World, the Nations and even citizen journalism to gardens?

Before answering that question, let us ask ourselves what --generally speaking-- defines a Nation:

- a language
- a culture
- a population
- a history
- customs and habits
- a poliical system
- a reputation
- laws
- values
- borders
...

In the past two years, several events attracted our attention. They made us realize how certain local events were often analyzed, understood, reported, commented, sanctioned and judged with no (or little) consideration for the 10 elements listed above. We will ask ourselves why, later.

A few illustrations of such behaviour regarding local events: The French "Happy Slapping-Citizen Journalism Case". Let us quote as well, another prominent example: the Danish caricatures, published in a local Danish newspaper, and whose reputation became global.

We have questions, on two different levels:

1. How sure are we, as foreign spectators, that France is sanctionning what we, Egyptians, Canadians, Americans, call "Citizen Journalism"? And by the way, do the French have an expression of their own for "Citizen Journalism"? Do they say journalism "citoyen"?

2. How come the Danes (as a people), when attacked by Islamic extremist and fanatic organizations , didn't reply, simply (1): "We understand you were offended but, with our sincere regrets, our local laws permit such caricatures". Period. One must remind at once that this *was* their initial reaction. It was toned down days and weeks later, hysterical actions and reactions all around the World.

*

Regarding the French. No, the French do not have an exact equivalent for "Citizen Journalism", even though many "amateur movies" (in French: "Films amateurs") shed light on bad treatment by policemen in French suburbs. So, there are "Citizen Journalists" but *common language* still hasn't recognized this very practice as a prominent practice, as an addition to French Freedom of Speech. Let us repeat this again: The French Law in project isn't condemning "Fims Amateurs" in general. It is condemning "Happy Slapping", a practice we described in another NP article.

We, as foreign readers, -- and *definitely* a step ahead of the French in our relationship to Citizen Journalism-- have interpreted this Law and anticipated how it would endanger their Freedom of Expression. Indeed, "Films amateurs" can save someone's life, can reveal the truth, can be a cry against injustice, etc. We need, and want, citizen journalists, especially in countries like Egypt were the press is under government control.

We, as foreign readers, might have ignored France's local context. And this brings us back to "Mixed Borders".

Mixed Borders are about "ignoring local context". Surprisingly, we seem to notice that both sides, alike, seem to be ignoring local context: the bad evil freedom bashers' side, and the nice people like us, educated and open-minded, wanting to do something universally good for their fellow human beings they respect, regardless of all those things I'm sure you know.

On one hand, the Bad evil Freedom Bashers wish to impose their religious beliefs to the Danes. On the other hand --with less dangerous consequences--, we, the foreign observers, have considered the French with our local views, our local fears, our local definitions: our *context* and mind.

Let us go back to a question we had about the Danes. Why did they not stand-up (again I must insist of the chronology of events I mentioned above, not to do the Danes any wrong), with no concession whatsoever, for their laws, their customs and their Freedom of Speech? Why, for that matter, did George W. Bush chime in, expressing his regrets?

Were the Danes, George W. Bush and many others, "afraid"?
Were they being "reasonable", acting like responsible adults?
Is "being reasonable" a synonym of "being a coward"?
Is "being reasonable" and "politically correct" about protecting National Security?

These are my open questions.

-----

I remember with great emotion, the UK's response to the deadly public transportation bombings (bus). The day after, the British wore T-Shirts saying: "We are not afraid", and they got back on the bus. Was it insolence? Was it pride?

To sum it all up: the interconnected World we live in is eroding the political, social, cultural, legal... borders, and affecting the stuff our silly local lives are made of. Sometimes this erosion leads to beautiful things. Sometimes it leads to small misunderstandings, here or there. Sometimes it's lethal.

Because there is no such thing as "a local Danish Newspaper" (as soon as it hits the Web, it becomes global), we have to ask ourselves how we can protect (and if we should) our local "public space", laws, beliefs etc.

Here lies, I believe, a major contemporary issue. Are we going to refrain caricaturing, criticizing, laughing, loving, kissing, voicing... locally, not to offend other countries that think otherwise; not to endanger our... national security?

And, when attacked for such simple manifestations of our Freedom, will we promise to shut-up or will we --just like British-- get back on the Bus?

Ahmad Sherif / ahmadsherif