How just is justice? What a question to ask! And how many of us would want to give an answer to it? I saw the hordes and hordes of people including heads of state and governments marching hand in hand in solidarity against the hideous killings of 12 people at the headquarters of the Paris based “Charlie Hebdo” magazine.

This act of barbarism was committed by a terrorist group close to the heart of Al-Qaeda. The effects of the Paris march spilled over the whole western world in condemnation of such atrocious acts. And again, it had a special touch because the killings involved men and women of the press.

Indeed, the act was beyond any doubt, odious and uncalled for. Some other method could have been used in order to counter any evil a magazine would have committed. Charlie Hebdo is a satirist weekly. It caricatures issues and personalities in the name of freedom of the press, which is an arm of democracy.

But how far can freedom go? I could be challenged for asking such a question considering the position I hold. But I stand on the fact that freedom has its limits, although when such limits are violated, the end product should not be murder. I also stand on the fact that freedom is principled and responsible.

Care must be taken that the freedom we exercise should not be manipulated to provoke or to cause a damaging effect on anyone, people or nation targeted. Charlie Hebdo is all satire; it is cartoon-oriented. For some, it is a wonderful expression of the real. For others, it is provocation par excellence, with an intent to distort the real. And that is where there is a problem. Freedom should be expressed without fear or favour.

But freedom in its expression must take into consideration the environment. It should be applied cautiously, so the real is not taken for the unreal and vice-versa. To caricature someone or something could raise bitter emotions. It has to be done with much caution even if it is in the name of freedom of expression. Circumstances must be weighed.

My concern here is not mainly on freedom but on how just, justice is meted out.

It is sad to note that a provoked people can take arms to destroy life with no qualms. We all sympathize with all those who lost their lives in the Charlie Hebdo massacre. This unfortunately is once more raising eye-brows on the definition of freedom of expression and how much action should be taken to curb acts of violence against those who exercise in the profession of journalism. It is an open debate and I know how passionate it can be.

You see, justice is also that way. How far can we go in exercising justice?

A terrorist act was committed in Paris. The reaction has been world-wide. Leaders of nations have been mobilized. Some had to alter their schedules to go to Paris. Many made strong statements including our own President Paul Biya to vehemently condemn such barbaric acts. But how just is justice?

Perhaps the next word I’d utter would be preposterous. But I’d not stop asking the question; how just is justice? When everyone is mobilized to condemn the killing of 12 to 17 people in Paris, how many people were mobilized when Boko Haram killed hundreds of Cameroonians and Nigerians? How much mobilization was effected and what actions have been taken so far when over 200 Chibok girls were kidnapped in Nigeria?

How much of the western world was mobilized to stop the genocide in Rwanda? President Biya in his end of year message and New Year wishes to the diplomatic corps alluded to it with all vehemence. He called for world cooperation to combat terrorism. Now, where do we situate Paris and Yaounde, or Abuja, or Nairobi or Bangui?

There is a call for solidarity, yet we see how unjustly such solidarity is expressed when it concerns a western nation and an African country in distress.

These are the same persons who call for justice and freedom, and we join them in singing the chorus. So, how just is justice? How free is freedom? Cameroon Journal