Some media outlets have decided to reproduce
the cartoons that got
Charlie Hebdo in Dutch with the Islamists. Some have suggested that they were
just playful satire , although
this one looks like nothing more than crude race baiting. If it were up to me I probably wouldn't do it; we after all have soldiers fighting in Muslim countries, and I'm not sure it helps their mission if Canadian newsies insist on displaying this kind of stuff.
On the other hand, some feel reproducing the images is essential to telling the story behind this horrible crime. Fair enough.
But one argument for showing the images needs addressing: that those who choose not to do so are acting out of cowardice. Dan Gardner puts it like this:
OK, so lets just respond by noting that any journalist who actually fears retaliation here, in Canada, is smoking something. And anyone who is publishing because they think it makes them braver than their non-publishing fellows should really get over themselves.
Similarly, if any news making decisions in 2005 were actually driven by fear of retaliation, than those people must have started believing the nonsense in their own papers. And
no when Ezra Levant published the cartoons
back then he was not being "brave"; the only practical effect of his acts was to increase the amount of hate speech directed towards Calgary area mosques.
And of course the effects of republishing these cartoons will most likely be similar. Already we have Christie Blatchford praising a deranged lunatic:
The day Charlie Hebdo was attacked, I had a story in the paper about an Ontario man named Eric Brazau being jailed another year for, at least in part, spouting off on a Toronto subway train about the Qur’an and Islam.
Yeah, Blatch, the other part of the reason he's serving time is for
criminal harassment. But in the wake of the shootings lets make these type of folks feel justified, shall we?