This is a cross-post by David Paxton at The Gerasites
“Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself.”
Preamble to the Laws of Cricket.
By the time I had got onto the internet following the Charlie Hebdo attack people had already begun to discuss how to react to those who murder for blasphemy, I quickly wrote a piece on it explaining why I thought it appropriate to reprint the offensive material and why it was unfortunately incumbent on all of us to call those in the media to account for not doing so. I think it has held up quite well. However, the weight of terrorist apologia, victim blaming,misplaced equivalence, intellectual laziness and moral weakness that has been ejaculated onto the web in the subsequent days suggests many people still cannot fathom the real message from this atrocity.
That message is this:
The maintenance of the full spectrum of free speech, except for those common law protections against harm, is an essential aspect of our society which all citizens have a duty to protect. This duty includes sharing the risks endured by those who may use their speech in ways you disapprove of and who express opinions you cannot countenance. The sharing of those risks includes media outlets reprinting offending material, both due to them being newsworthy by definition and because of the effect it will have in rendering attacks less effective. We need to arrive at the point where this position is the norm and any efforts that bring that to pass are required of us all.
How far from this we still are is seen by this Guardian piece addressing the latest cover. In it Joseph Harker, Assistant Comment Editor at the paper says of Charlie Hebdo:
In depicting the prophet Muhammad it is deliberately offending the vast majority of Muslims around the world. And in caricaturing him holding a “Je suis Charlie” placard, they are adding insult to injury by claiming the prophet would support the values of the magazine, which for years has been widely criticised for targeting Muslims, in particular, under the cover of free speech.
Yes. That is right. He said they have ‘added insult to injury’. Those vile and cruel, mostly-dead bastards. How tasteless of them. How insensitive.
Do read the rest of David’s post here
Gene adds: See Paul Berman’s excellent analysis of the rather mysterious Charlie Hebdo cover cartoon. What it is not, he makes clear, is an attack on Mohammed.
