The massacre at Charlie Hebdo has its own religious and cultural context. That does not mean we Thais should not pay attention to the free speech versus hate speech conflict at the heart of the brutality.
I have to make it clear that there can be no defence for the murders. We do not kill people we disagree with. We discuss the differences, debate them and even part ways from each other if we can find no common ground. We don't settle philosophical or ideological differences with bullets — or shouldn't anyway.
That said, the question of how one can be in defence of freedom of expression or, on the other hand, in defence of what one perceives as something sacred is one that will be a challenge in the increasingly multicultural world we live in.
This question is especially applicable to Thai society, where the current military leaders consider hunting down people accused of violating the lese majeste law their priority.
The tensions over the lese majeste law, which prohibits insulting the monarchy, follow a similar line of free speech versus profanation. It's a conflict thread that is faced by almost every country in the world. It's one that can easily spawn extremist reactions. And it's one that is not easily resolvable anywhere.
Regarding lese majeste, one group of people — namely, the military rulers and other right-wing activists — believes the monarchy is a sacred institution that must be held inviolable no matter what. They thus maintain that the lese majeste law be maintained and vigorously used to prosecute those criticising and insulting the revered institution.
For them, it does not matter that the lese majeste law is deeply flawed, as it allows anybody to sue anybody.
Besides, the law, which is by nature a defamation one, carries a heavy jail term, with a minimum of three to a maximum of 15 years.
For proponents, the monarchy is their religion. They want everyone to revere the institution. Any deviation is deemed intolerable.
The other group of people, however, believes freedom of expression must include the freedom to criticise all established institutions.
Free speech supporters do not see criticism as an act of sacrilege, but a fair thing to do under democracy. For them, freedom of expression helps keep institutions accountable and allows them to be improved.
These "liberals" believe the lese majeste law is politically abused; thus it should be either amended or abandoned. Their stance has provoked ire from ultra-royalists and a promise of more prosecutions from the powers-that-be.
The problem is these two groups seem to be expanding the areas of what they hold as sacred. Some extreme right-wing groups demand that nothing can be said about the institution at all, while some free speech defenders stretch their right to criticism all the way until it becomes downright offensive.
The tendency by both sides to carry their values to the extreme, plus the military's eagerness to crack down on lese majeste offences, makes them vulnerable to clashes.
It is true the dilemma between free speech and the lese majeste offence is but one of many seemingly unresolvable conflicts in our society. It's probably not among the most pertinent at the moment, though, considering there are other issues that will matter more in the near future, such as the content of the new charter and new cyber laws being drafted.
The contest between free speech and monarchic offence, however, is one with the potential to explode if not handled well. In a way, both values are held as "sacred" by their supporters. When two kinds of sacrosanctness clash, worshipers tend to defend them at all costs. That is when violence comes into play.
I am not trying to paint a scary picture and say that our dilemma with the lese majeste law will provoke anything like the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The truth, however, is that discussions about the monarchy are too emotionally charged. One only has to look back to the Oct 6, 1976, massacre to realise that killings to "protect" an institution are not unimaginable.
Every society needs something sacred to hold on to. It's only natural also that we would want to protect what we worship.
The protection instinct, which could be the reason the rather harsh lese majeste law was enshrined in the first place, might have worked in the past. But now that society has changed and new democratic values, including free speech, have been adopted more widely, maybe it is time to find a new balance between the two values to avoid violence.
Atiya Achakulwisut is Contributing Editor, Bangkok Post.