鈥淚 disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.鈥�
This quote from English Writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall鈥攚ho wrote under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre鈥攊s particularly poignant in the aftermath of the politically motivated murders of 10 journalists and two police officers in France last week.
This was, of course, a particularly egregious crime for a journalist to stomach, seeing colleagues killed for exercising those fundamental liberal democratic values of free expression and freedom of the press that we hold so dear.
Like many people, my initial reaction was that the cartoons that precipitated the attack on the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo should be splashed across the front pages of every newspaper and broadcast on every TV report around the world.
I among many questioned mainstream media outlets for what appeared to be either cowardice or political correctness in action. After all, it is the cartoons they published that provide the context for everything that followed. They were news, an essential and integral part of the story. To not publish them was akin to letting the terrorists win.
Or so the argument went. Others saw it differently.
鈥淚 think the idea of cowardice is really interesting,鈥� said David Studer, CBC鈥檚 director of journalistic standards and practices. 鈥淏ecause I think if you are saying us not running these things means the bad guys win, my view is that remaining civilized and sticking to our principles is what defeats bad guys, not giving in to the emotion of the moment.鈥�
It is perhaps not absolutely necessary, as Studer argues, to have access to the images to understand the story. As a journalist though, especially one preparing to write a column on the subject, it was imperative for me to find them.
The bottom line is, many of them are offensive, and not just to Muslims. As someone who has occupied the editor鈥檚 chair, if someone had submitted this work to me for publication, I would not have considered running it, not even for a second. After the fact, with its news value entrenched, it would have been a tougher call, but one that I believe I would have sided with editors at the Globe and Mail who wrote in an editorial Sunday: 鈥淐harlie Hebdo鈥檚 editors lived by their values, and died for them. If there is a better way to honour them than by doing the same thing, we don鈥檛 know what it is.鈥�
In my opinion, many of the cartoons are sophomoric, racist and probably homophobic. What they are not, in any way, shape or form, is justification for even mild violence much less a murderous rampage.
But they are also not above criticism, even in the light of terrible events of last week.
And neither should be religion. Far too often, we give religion a pass on the basis
Inevitably, this horrific crime has once again turned up the heat on the intense debate over whether Islam, at its core, is compatible with a modern pluralistic society. Certainly, the extremists who carry out these kinds of attacks are barbaric anachronisms bringing modern weapons to bear on medieval values.
Apologists suggest it is a mere handful of bad apples giving the entire religion a bad name. They accuse people who rightfully question the violence as being Islamophobic. Some even argue that it is western foreign policy that is to blame for the
The fact of the matter is, in light of all of the horrific acts that are carried out in the name of Islam, it is getting more difficult all the time even for reasonable people not to question just what Islam is all about, just what are the fundamental values of this faith that claims 1.6 million adherents.
I cannot say I honestly know at this point, but what I do know is that we cannot take the discussion off the table over sensitivity toward people鈥檚 beliefs.
If Islam is not a threat in and of itself, myriad individuals, organizations and governments that profess allegiance to it are. We cannot be intimidated into ignoring that because they can鈥檛 take a joke, even if it is a bad one.
