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:
@Bigcitylib2 Yes. I am. I was in the thick of newsrooms in the 2005 debate and that fear is exactly what underlay all the rationalizations.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.
— Dan Gardner (@dgardner) January 8, 2015
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?
Jeremy, I'm not entirely sure you are a real person.
ReplyDeleteAnd CBC goes for the gold medal in balanced reporting with the appearance of a nice disintereested observer in Mark Steyn. Give me a break.
ReplyDeleteCBC really bit a fart by allowing Steyn on the air.
ReplyDeleteWow. The only response you can come up with to people like Jeremy is to deny they exist.
ReplyDeleteConvenient, I suppose. Avoids the debate over whether the Westboro Baptist Church gets to decide we can`t call Jesus a dirty hippy or whether Jeremy gets to decide what we`re allowed to say about the prophet Mohammed (piss be upon him).
Jeremy, I disagree with many aspects of your religion and what is written in your holy texts, as I do with Christianity and practically every other religious group. However, just because I disagree with your beliefs does not mean I mark you out as a person worthy of any hatred or harm, physical or otherwise - yet you would mark me out for it just because I don't respect what I see as false? Hmm, something isn't right there.
ReplyDeleteKyle if that were true please explain why 'Fat Boy' wants to shut down stations and journalists he doesn't agree with....Hypocracy thy name is BCL !
ReplyDeleteSorry, Jeremy. Freedom of religion means you are free to exercise your religion in Canada so far as you follow the laws of this country. Laws against discrimination mean that government and businesses cannot refuse to serve you because of your religion. It does not mean that anybody has to respect your religion, nor does it mean that you cannot have your feelings hurt.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech means that anybody can make fun of your religion if they so desire. It also does not protect Christianity, atheism, Satanism, democracy, or anything else from mockery or insult.
If I were to make fun of your religion, that may make me an asshole, but it is not illegal for me to do so. You are free to disagree with my insults and you can mock my beliefs in retaliation, but it is illegal for you to assault or attempt to murder me because I injured your feelings.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete