Final Thoughts on Charlie Hebdo

I don't have much to add to what I have already said about the Charlie Hebdo killings. However, having had some time to think about things a little more, and to read what other people have said, I do feel inclined to change my mind about one aspect of this.

First, Charlie Hebdo put out a new issue today. Here is the cover image, which I think is brilliant:



The caption translates to “All Is Forgiven.”

In my original post I was rather dismissive of the artistic value of the Muhammad cartoons. I now think I was too hasty. I hadn't fully appreciated the context in which some of the cartoons had been published. The cartoons depicting Muhammad, a selection of which can be found here, generally have very good messages that shouldn't be offensive to anyone.

In one, for example, we see Muhammad crying, saying, “It's hard to be loved by idiots.” A caption to the side says, “Muhammad weeps for fundamentalists.” I would think that most Muslims have no problem with that message. Another depicts a man wearing a Charlie Hebdo tee shirt in a big kiss with Muhammad. The caption reads, “Love Is Stronger Than Hate.” That was one that I initially thought was going too far, until I realized it was published in the wake of the earlier fire bombing of the Charlie Hebdo offices. Given that context I think it's excellent.

The only thing that's arguably offensive about the cartoons is that they depict Muhammad at all. But, I'm sorry, that really seems like a mighty small provocation. If you're absolutely determined to get offended by something then be my guest, but please don't tell me that Charlie Hebdo is publishing anything that is obviously beyond the pale. Far worse things than that are routinely published about atheists, in perfectly mainstream venues no less, and yet we atheists manage to shrug it off.

Other cartoons have come to light that are supposed to show what awful racists they are, but, in every case, when the context is understood, it turns out the point of the cartoon was the exact opposite of that. Given that there are powerful political parties in France whose raison d'etre is all about racism and anti-Muslim rage, parties that have been immeasurably strengthened by these attacks, it is pretty rich to accuse Charlie Hebdo of intolerance. Jerry Coyne has a good rundown.

The fact is that they are left-wing, anti-religious publication which in every case that I have seen is promoting messages that should be promoted. Moreover, they do this in ways that are trenchant and powerful. So I regret having been too hasty in my earlier post.

That said, I do not think that those publications that refused to republish the cartoons should be derided as cowards or as enemies of free speech. That was one of the points of my original post. If a group of Neo-Nazis had their offices shot up, we would all defend the free speech rights of Neo-Nazis, but no one would argue that we now had to republish their vile propaganda. So I don't see why a publication can't defend free speech, while still deciding the cartoons are too offensive to republish.

I did say that the very fact that people are being targeted for the specific content of their speech can justify publishing material that in other contexts would be considered tasteless and offensive. I stand by that, but would note that that is far different from saying that anyone is obligated to republish the cartoons.

In short, what I have learned about Charlie Hebdo over the last few days suggests to me that they are an admirable and important publication. Were they to regularly put out an English language edition, I would consider subscribing.

More like this

I think the publications that have failed to fully report today's news by showing Charlie's front cover are showing moral cowardice and journalistic irresponsibility of the first order.
The Press has a long history of having to fight against repression - now bowing to that repression entirely negates their raison d'etre.
It seems many amongst us have forgotten what freedom is, how it was obtained, how it is preserved, and why we need it.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 13 Jan 2015 #permalink

Would you still feel that way if it was Nazi propaganda they failed to show?

It seems plenty of people in the West are prepared to stand up and be counted as people who claim that Muslims are deeply offended by the message that Muhammad would condemn the killings in Paris.

Have they talked to any actual Muslims about what they think of a message that Muhammad would be against those killings?

By Steven Carr (not verified) on 13 Jan 2015 #permalink

Is Jason claiming that textbooks, the print media, documentary programmes and universities should never reproduce the drawings of Jews found in Der Sturmer from the 1930's?

That these offensive images should be verboten?

By Steven Carr (not verified) on 13 Jan 2015 #permalink

I'm not saying any such thing and you know it. I'm saying that decisions about whether to reproduce offensive material have to depend on the context. In the present situation, a news outlet could reasonably decide not to reproduce the cartoons for reasons having nothing to do with cowardice. That would be obvious if we were talking about reproducing neo-Nazi propaganda instead of cartoons that are offensive to Muslims.

Or do you think newspapers would be obligated to reproduce the Nazi propaganda in the situation I described in my post?

Obviously, you are not obligated to reproduce anything.

But I have seen Nazi cartoons reproduced in newspapers. The editors clearly thought their readers would be better informed if they knew what sort of cartoons the Nazis had produced.

Many editors of today clearly think it is not their job to inform their readers about what sort of cartoons Charlie Hebdo were producing.

If you buy a newspaper to be informed about the background to news stories, you will have to look elsewhere if you want to know what the story is about.

By Steven Carr (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

Do you think , for example, the Daily Telegraph , should not have published lengthy quotes from Anders Breijvik's manifesto?

Newspapers do not think twice about publishing neo-Nazi propaganda , if it is relevant to news events.

Why would , to take an example, the BBC publish Breijvik propaganda but not reprint a cartoon of Muhammad crying about killings done in his name?

Is it because the BBC had absolutely no qualms about quoting very right-wing propaganda, no qualms whatever, but is scared about being fire-bombed?

By Steven Carr (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

Obviously, you are not obligated to reproduce anything.

I agree, but this is not obvious to a lot of the people commenting on this. Quite a lot of people have argued that news outlets absolutely are obligated to reproduce the cartoons, on pain of being labeled as cowards and enemies of free speech if they don't. You seem to imply rather strongly that a newspaper that did not reproduce the cartoons is abdicating its responsibilities.

These are always going to be difficult cases. The harm of giving offense to readers and of possibly promoting a cause you despise has to be weighed against the importance of the offensive material to the story. My point in the post is simply that reasonable people can come to different conclusions about what is proper.

If my neo-Nazi example does not impress you, then what if we were talking about pornographers? Would newspapers have to publish a bunch of pornography to report the story properly? Would you argue that you couldn't really understand the story properly without actually seeing the pornography? Of course not.

If you think the BBC has been inconsistent about something you can take it up with them. Personally, I can think of all sorts of reasons why they would decide to publish parts of the manifesto, but would balk at reproducing the cartoons. But that is neither here nor there, at least with regard to the point I'm making in the post.

Jason is right that no one is obligated to publish anything. But the decision not to publish an illustration that has become the story itself should. To be taken lightly, and should hew to genuine news values.

I think that in most cases, an honest assessment of those values will lead to a decision to publish. And yes, that includes new-Nazi material.

Note that the absurdity of the decision taken by so many mainstream outlets not to publish the CH cartoons became too much to maintain today, as many decided they would publish or at least link to, the new CH cover. This includes the Guardian, Al Jazeera and several others.

By James Hrynyshyn (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

# 6 & 7: Exactly.
------------------------------
Generally--
I'm heartened that you've reconsidered and changed your views about the positive merits of Charlie Hebdo's work which, in its courage, is nearly alone in French periodicals--- and that might nearly be said "in European periodicals" though I don't know enough to claim quite that much.

The truth is exactly as you've described it: Charile Hebdo's critics are, practiacally without exception, dishonest purveyors of malign distortion and their criticisms are disgustingly false. That said, like all things produced by people, the weekly isn't infalible--a claim that's more often found, again, among the religionists about their deity.

RE: "In the present situation, a news outlet could reasonably decide not to reproduce the cartoons for reasons having nothing to do with cowardice."

I suppose that such editors might--as they say, "anything is possible." The fact of what could theoretically be possible doesn't excuse us from responsibility to judge in each particular instance what the actual motives were most reasonably likely to have been. When we do that, I think honest people should (and most intelligent honest people would) recognize hardly disguised cowardly rationalizations when they see them. So, in the cases of the BBC, the New York Times and so many others, what they are attempting to do is pass off their cowardice as "sensitivity to the religious feelings of others." No one has so far presented an clear and convincing argument that I've seen as for why such a standard should ever be determinative in such issues as this--deciding whether or not to publish something in a general or satirical newspaper.

Religions are the first and the natural homes of all manner of gross human bigotry and cruelty and, in so far as humankind has managed to distance itself from certain aspects of its long ugly history on those counts, its almost entirely been through the overturning of age-old religious habits of thought and behaviour.

RE: "That would be obvious if we were talking about reproducing neo-Nazi propaganda instead of cartoons that are offensive to Muslims."

I don't see it as at all obvious--and I usually see such things when they're really so obvious. If "sparing" readers from seeing what Nazi (c. 1930s-40s) or Neo-Nazi propaganda and images looks like is based on any similar such sensitivity for the feelings of Jews or those who appoint themselves as their unofficial public defenders then, in my opinion, that's no more respectable than the claim that Muslim people make that we're all obligated to place any, even a single, Muslim's tender feelings about his religious beliefs---which might, after all, be entirely erroneous in historical fact but who cares about that, right?

American (U.S.) society has, over the past 50 to 60 years ceded an immense ground in civil liberties freedom of thought and conscience and much, indeed, perhaps most of this has been the direct consequence of intolerance which goes under the name and banner of "multiculturalism" (a.k.a "the 'right' never to be offended by anyone about anything")-- something that clearly trumps real meaningful freedom for many damned-fools who call themselves liberals.

That's a great disgrace, as is the fact that this is so little appreciated by so many Americans who really ought to know better and have little excuse for not knowing better.

I'll take this occasion to recommend to all who haven't yet read it, The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. I read it cover to cover only recently after having read large portions of it years ago. It especially bears reading in such times as these. We are in very deep trouble and things are getting much worse, not better.

By proximity1 (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

Jason thinks that if 3 million copies of a Neo-Nazi magazine were sold in France, and if newsstands were sold out in 5 minutes, then newpapers are not obligated to inform their readers about this magazine.

I think they are.

When Paolo di Canio was appointed manager of Sunderland, newspapers here published images of Paolo giving Fascist salutes to football fans in Rome, and published images of his tattoos of Mussolini and other fascist symbols he had on his back.

Why does Jason compare CH to neo-Nazi material, as though newspapers never publish neo-Nazi images , if they are newsworthy?

If CH was a neo-Nazi magazine, selling 3 million copies in France, there would be acres of images of the magazine in English newspapers.

By Steven Carr (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

to finish a thought that got lost in the course of composition--

..."that’s no more respectable than the claim that Muslim people make that we’re all obligated to place any, even a single, Muslim’s tender feelings about his religious beliefs—which might, after all, be entirely erroneous in historical fact but who cares about that, right?--above and before all other considerations for news value or the right to publish, read and think free of others' censorious opinions.

previously (omitted part in bold here, of course)

By proximity1 (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

If Jason wants to compare CH to pornographic materials that are illegal to publish in Britain, except in licensed premises, then he would have a point.

Newspapers are under no obligation to print materials which are illegal for them to publish.

By Steven Carr (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

Jason thinks that if 3 million copies of a Neo-Nazi magazine were sold in France, and if newsstands were sold out in 5 minutes, then newpapers are not obligated to inform their readers about this magazine.

Inform their readers about this magazine? Of course. They just wouldn't be obligated to reproduce offensive material.

If Jason wants to compare CH to pornographic materials that are illegal to publish in Britain, except in licensed premises, then he would have a point.

That's a complete cop-out. We're talking about principles here, not anything specific to the laws of one country. In the case of pornographers the story could be reported perfectly well without reproducing the pornography. Likewise here.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the cartoon shouldn't be reproduced. I think newspapers should reprint them in this case, since my judgment is that their informative value, and their generally positive message, outweighs the offense they would cause. I'm just not going to get self-righteous on any news outlet that made a different decision.

But , Jason, British newspapers and the BBC show offensive rightwing material all the time.

Tattoos of Mussolini , for example.

They even publish Nazi cartoons of Jews, if it is relevant to the news today.

Obviously, they don't publish as many Nazi cartoons as they used to. The NSDAP are not in the papers as often as they used to be years ago.

If you can publish Nazi cartoons about Jews, why can't you publish a cartoon of Muhammad condemning killings?

RE: 13

In case you haven't seen it,

One of my very favorite Hebdo covers was published in direct response to critics who charged the weekly with being outrageously irresponsible--with "pouring oil on a raging fire". At this writing, I've forgotten what the particular raging fire was all about in that instance but the cover (drawn by "Charb" ( the late Stépane Charbonbnier) showed a sterotypical Cave-man dressed in a skin, holding aloft in one hand a crude vessel which, as the text indicated by an arrow pointing to it, contained "oil" and, in the other hand, poised to join the vessel, was a brightly burning torch, indicated by another arrow and the word "fire". Over the drawing was the caption: "The invention of humour."

I think it was with that issue that they added the words "Journal irrésponsible" to their standard cover banner.

Priceless!

By proximity1 (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

Doh! My typing! "Journal Irrésponsable" --- spelled with an "a" rather than an "i".

By proximity1 (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

Basically agree with Jason but I do think the Nazi office analogy is overwrought -- quite honestly I think many "liberals" would be secretly happy with such an attack and not defending their free speech rights. As you probably know, when Ferguson, Mo. was in the news, the group "Anonymous" hacked into and took over a great many local and national KKK websites and doxxed KKK members, and MANY cheered that on. Hacking and doxxing are not the same as deadly force, but the dirty little fact is that the purpose of doxxing is to expose individuals to threats, harassment (or worse) once addresses, ph. numbers, workplaces, etc. are made public.

Further to the discussion, let's remember--

a generally defended "Freedom of the press" is a partisan position in itself and, typically so, a most often a "liberal" or "Left-wing" partisan position. There are many publishers and many publications which make no pretense of ever defending any such general right since they oppose it--sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly. They'd defend their own right to print and publish as they see fit but not just any others' right to do the same. These publishers and their publications are also often avowedly partisan and, in their partisanship and the political beliefs they hold and defend, one or more of the general civic freedoms of speech, press, assembly, etc., is not included among them and they make no bones about that.

By proximity1 (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

Proximity1:

...responsibility to judge in each particular instance what the actual motives were most reasonably likely to have been. When we do that, I think honest people should (and most intelligent honest people would) recognize hardly disguised cowardly rationalizations when they see them. So, in the cases of the BBC, the New York Times and so many others

I don't think a blanket 'cowardice' label is apprpriate for all non-republishers, but in this particular case I'm inclined to say the NYT earned it. Their leadership went to the effort of explaining their decision and their explanation was incredibly weak, incredibly self-serving. Something along the lines of 'all our employees wanted to publish it. They were willing to take the risk. But we decided not to because we didn't want to offend our muslim readers.'
I'm sorry, but offending your readers is something you're pretty much going to have to do occasionally, if you're really speaking truth to power. Avoiding an important subject because it might reduce readership is pretty much the nadir of news reporting. (Not that they are the only ones to do that, but since they've blatantly admitted to doing it here, I think its fair to judge them on that admission.)

Stephen Carr:

If you can publish Nazi cartoons about Jews, why can’t you publish a cartoon of Muhammad condemning killings

Nobody is arguing you can't. Nobody is even arguing whether publishing the cartoons in this case is ethically praiseworthy - it is. What Jason (and I will join him) is whether publishing the cartoons is ethically necessary, i.e., whether papers can be considered, in a blanket fashion, to be doing something wrong or incorrect if they don't republish them.

I don't think its right to make that sort of blanket condemnation. With some papers, yeah, they might have earned the 'coward' label (see my previous post for an example). But I would have little problem with a paper that polled its employees, found many of them didn't want to put themselves or their families at risk of attack, and decided on that basis not to republish. At that point maybe you want to condemn the individual employees for not taking the risk - that's up to you - but I am not willing to fault a paper executive who, in that situation, chooses to listen to their employees rather than put them in the line of fire against their will.

a generally defended “Freedom of the press” is a partisan position in itself and, typically so, a most often a “liberal” or “Left-wing” partisan position.

Huh? Maybe that's the way its interpreted now, but I think the fact that it was written into our constitution in 1789 means it can't really be called a "liberal" position. Founding fathers from across the political spectrum (which was more federalist-anti-federalist than conservative-liberal at the time) thought it was a good idea. And as much as I may think right-wing comments about the 'lamestream media" are overdone hype, I think we can see tacit support for freedom of the press in their response to what they perceived as biased reporting: they created more news outlets, they didn't call for current papers to be shut down. This strategy they took is pretty much in distinct contrast to the strategy they often use on controversial speech, so I think it's a pretty decent indication that, in the US at least, freedom of the press is seen as a good thing across the political spectrum.

eric,

Aboslutely. I think there may be parts of the lunatic fringe on the right that might argue against free speech, but I think we can and should discount the lunatic fringe on either side of the political spectrum. I have NEVER seen any mainstream conservative argue against the idea of free speech.

@21:

I think that, interestingly enough, you touch on one of the more important and oft' ignored issues concerned here. It probably deserves its own extended treatment but in this case it's clearly an important issue--as I'll say more on why below.

@ 21 & 22

CH, as I already mentioned, is such a rare bird. No matter where you look, papers like it are exceedingly hard to find. The vast majority of the press are more or less mouthpieces for establishment interests--even if some of these are somewhat more or less "liberal" in tone or tendency. Very few papers exist for what is practically the sole purpose of afflicting the comfortable and comforting the affliced--though that doesn't stop the others from sermonizing about how they're all tribunes of the people and such rot. Hypocrisy is right at home in the news mass media--France being no exception there, either.

So, about the moral courage and the moral duty to re-publish-- the reason I find it so important to consider furhter is for the very reason highlighted by the CH attacks--lately and previously. Unless numerous papers and other news agencies republish as a deliberate strategy, the oppressive censorious aims of such violence can be seen (correctly) to have been effective and that all by itself can contribute to a deepening climate of fear and censorship and worst of all, a growing fear-driven (whether admitted or not) self-censorship. That, above all, is the objective of these terrorists.

Notice that, for example, many Muslims will--and did--turn out to march at the rally Sunday. Some even spoke on camera--which is indeed brave. But what we don't see and haven't seen is any spontaneous and mediatized Muslim-sponsored and led mass protest--let alone any determined effort to find, expose and destroy these cells of Islamic fanaticism in their midst. That doesn't happen and I have little reason to expect that it's going to happen and there are various reasons why that's the case.

One of the best observations I've read--and an key example of why Jason's treatments have been so much better than what I've seen anywhere else--is that we simply couldn't in our wildest dreams imagine a Charlie Hebdo look-alike in any Islamic nation, no matter how modern, enlightened or "democratically" oriented. It's simply unthinkable. That speaks volumes--or ought to--in answer to those who never tire of reminding us that "most Muslims" aren't anything like these violently anti-democratic terrorists who are set on establishing a world-wide caliphate. Yeah, well, may Allah spare me from further rehearsals of that homilie.

Our current trend is decidely backward and dangerously so. That is what gives this aspect of moral duty to republish the urgency it has and deserves but which, you'll notice, is mostly missing most everywhere--though,yes, mentioned in passing, the better to get rid of it.

By proximity1 (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

@ 23 : No matter what he or his paid minions may claim publicly, Rupert Murdoch, for example, doesn't really give the slightest damn about any real and general freedom of the press--or, even less, freedom of speech for a general populace. The mere fact that he could or does claim to care is simply more of what is routine from him and his organs: lying, hypocritical bullshit.

Most of the press chiefs really believe (and operate according to) the familiar view, "Freedom of the Press" is for the people who happen to own one." And that is exactly what they say when the cameras and microphones are trained on them.

As for the cherished U.S. First Amendment, it took the just-born United States only until John Adams' administration and the Fifth Congress to put "Paid" to that cardinal liberty. Freedom of the Press is all very nice but, in 1798, France's revolutionary fever was scaring the hell out of our formerly so pious advocates and defenders of the Bill of Rights---and John Adams was never one of the most ardent of those in the first place.

Now, Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine--they're another story.

For a great treatment of just what the First Amendment was worth and how long it lasted, see, e.g. American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns by Richard N. Rosenfeld

By proximity1 (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

Correction:

And that is exactly what they say when the cameras and microphones are not trained on them.

By proximity1 (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

I believe Larry Moran raised an interesting point on Coyne's blog - namely what do you expect the newspapers to reproduce given that Charlie Hebdo has produced quite a bit of material. if you reproduce just the mild ones then you run the risk of creating an impression that Muslims get offended at small things. If you publish the really offensive stuff then you risk offending some of your viewers for no apparent benefit.
If a newspaper has to accurately convey what the cartoons were about , it would have to print quite a bit.

That said, I do not think that those publications that refused to republish the cartoons should be derided as cowards or as enemies of free speech.
Yep - many people have gone overboard with this type of rhetoric.

By Deepak Shetty (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

Offensive to whom? As best as I can see, there are many Muslims around the world who don't give a tinker's damn about which magazine in which Western country is printing cartoons of their prophet. Even more Muslims have expressed unqualified support for the right of anyone to mock and ridicule Islam. "All Muslims find it offensive.." is the most obnoxious stereotyping. And if you do not wish to offend the religious sensitivities of any group, however small, however in the fringes, then please be consistent. Remove images of women from your news story because some ultra-orthodox Jewish group might find it offensive.

By Saikat Biswas (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

@27: That's not a particularly interesting question, IMO. Someone is trying to suppress a message, the thing you print is the message they are trying to suppress. To show that their efforts are in vain. Really, do you need a more in-depth answer?

Although another acceptable answer if your primary focus is demonstrating a dedication to free speech, is to select publications that targeted you for derision. I believe there was a bunch of Jesuits that did that; republished CH cartoons mocking the Roman Catholic Church. That sends a pretty powerful message too.

Regarding Michael Fugate's post...

So the Guardian reported that some Jews were offended by an image...

And , naturally, the Guardian then reprinted the offensive image!

Although if an image is offensive to Muslims, the Guardian won't reprint it, no matter how newsworthy it is.

The hypocrisy is astonishing.

By Steven Carr (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink

I'd like to add just two more comments to the thread. Here, the first of them:
-------------------------------------------
@31: "The hypocrisy is astonishing."

Indeed it is--until we notice that The Guardian has made itself (needlessly and uselessly!) into what amounts to the veritable "home-base" of idiotic American-style multiculturalism--a belief system which puts the right not to be offended by anything or anyone above all else. It's a belief system which mistakes what's commonly regarded as multiculturalism (the undifferentiated hodge-podge of ethnicity, religious affiliation, race, dress styles, and all manner of variations in taste and in (supposed) artistic- expression to be the same thing as or, by some lights, even a superior substitute for what is quite different in character: a secular (laic) civil order in which certain civic rights are assumed valid and essential to all people without distinctions or cares for any of those aspects which come under the conventional views of "multicultural" society.

What the Guardian is apparently determined not to understand is that a society can be quite "multicultural"--indeed, it may even be excessively so, without also having much or anything to do with practical or theoretical concepts of secular life and the universal rights and privileges which it claims to promote as belonging to all whether claimed or not, recognized or not or understood or not.

If I wanted to explain to a curious person how liberals (as that is understood today) are a stunningly silly and stupid lot of people so much of the time, I could hardly do better than to advise him to regularly read The Guardian and, especially, its reader's praising comments.

By proximity1 (not verified) on 15 Jan 2015 #permalink

And, last, these thoughts from last night--

Let's think again about the massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo for a moment and mention a few things I haven't seen so far.

Thearmed terrorists, having finally got into the right buidling (at first, they forced their way into a neighboring address as the postman or another person was going in or out. Then, demanding of the terrified two people they'd come upon, they discovered their mistake and went out after somehow rendering them harmless),they burst in upon the room, finding what they'd expected--the weekly editoral meeting in progress.

It must have taken no more than the blink of an eye for the assembled staff to grasp what was happening and going to happen next to them.

But we, we could imagine things differently and reflect on what the murderers might have done but clearly either never considered or dismissed in favor of the boody carmage they wrought.

They could have just trashed the room and its contents while all the staff looked on, horrified.

Or they might have bitterly harrangued the editorial team, excoriated them at length for having "insulted Islam" by publishing drawings of their prophet.

Or they could have forced them--or tried to force them--at gunpoint, to apologize or to demonstrate in some deeply humiliating way their real or feigned remorse.

Or they might have even subjected each one there to lashes of a whip, or to other beatings or physical punishment.

Intstead of any of those lesser injuries, these two fanatics of Islam had determined, as self-appointed prosecutor, judge and jury, that their only proper recourse was to execute those they indicated by calling out their names--and, as each was identified--or identified him or herself--gunned them down-- not in cold blood but, in all liklihood, in a barely controlled rage. They were out not for instructive punishment of the offenders but for bloody revenge. They didn't merely want expressions of contrition from the staff, they wante to silence them once and for all as their example-making punishment for all others who'd think of ever doing anything similar. For them, only violent murder would serve the desired ends.

Now let's consider this aspect, too. Their operation was premised on avenging (by murder) an offense (as they decided it) to "Islam"--again, as they determined that. At no time did they take direct and personal responsibility for their acts of revenge--instead of assuming on themselves and for themselves the part of the offended, they presumed to speak for all Muslims everywhere as the supposedly offended parties.

At the same time, by their acts, they demonstrated their own complete contempt for everything about the ususally claimed standards of French civil society's principles of law and justice--due process for an accused, the right to a hearing and a defense, the right to be treated humanely--even in arrest, confinement, trial and examination. All of that they brutally violated without the slightest regard for it. Thus, they demonstrated for centuries of "Western" legal principles the same complete insulting contempt with which they charged their victims of having shown toward "Islam." And at no point did it ever apparently occur to them that they might be committing such an offense.

Clearly, to them, unlike to those in the room who they murdered, all right, all justice, all consideration, lay on their, the avenger's, side and nothing at all on their victims' side. Clearly, their acts showed that, as they saw it, this was the fitting course for not only these but every other person or group who might ever do anything of a similar sort.

According to their view of Islam, any offence to any Muslim who deems to regard it as sufficiently grave, is to be redressed not by lectures or lashes but by violent and bloody murder. That's where we are and it is in this cruel and stupid intolerance that we must regard those who have argued again and again that it is upon the journalists that proper responsibility for the violence meted out to them lies.

We should reflect on all of that at great length for all that it says and means.

By proximity1 (not verified) on 15 Jan 2015 #permalink

@ 34: "Warning: this article contains the image of the magazine cover, which some may find offensive."

tells me almost everything I need to know about the Guardian's intellectual point of view. The editors and commentators, lost in a morass of pseudo-liberal moral confusion are a friggin' disgrace and they ought to take time to read Harris's The Moral Landscape--that is, assuming they could understand his arguments.

By proximity1 (not verified) on 16 Jan 2015 #permalink

That's really rich coming from an anonymous commenter on a blog post - way to take responsibility. I wish I could have your intellectual and moral integrity.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 16 Jan 2015 #permalink

James Taylor. What better way to express foreign policy depth and sophistication.

I'm anonymous to _you_, maybe and to many ordinary readers here but you're demonstrating your standard of reasoning and awareness if you suppose--as you do--that I'm any safer than any other person who might become a target of interest to any of the fanatical islamic extremists out there. If such groups can hack CentCom's site, they probably wouldn't have any trouble hacking my personal e-mail and finding out all they'd want or need to know about me.

That doesn't mean I'm a particular example of bravery and I haven't claimed to be. But I don't need exemplary guts to be able to reason morally in a way that's better than many I've observed. In addition, unlike newspapers and other vulnerable locales, there are no police guards patroling my place of residence, I have no bodyguard, no driver, no security camera, and, I typically walk everywhere I go.

So, unless you're similarly vulnerable--or unless you're ready to make the case that every such individual is morally obliged to assume the same degrees and kinds of risks which a responsible national newspaper ought to bear in such circumstances as ours today (a case you've not even attempted to make), then please spare me your hypocritical lectures on moral courage. Out respect for JR's blog, I'll confine the terms of my contempt for you and your views to this while noting that your retort addressed nothing at pertinent about the criticisms I've made concerning The Guardian.

By proximity1 (not verified) on 16 Jan 2015 #permalink

@ 37 : I thought the same on hearing about James Taylor's little performance. What a couple of political jerks, Obama and Cameron and, seeing how Obama puts himself at the service of this truly despicable class warrior against the poorest and most vulnerable, brutally redressing Britain's economic follies on their backs, there's nothing left of the disgusting pretense that Obama is or ever was a representative or a defender of the ordinary interests of the common class.

It's really hard to sink so low as to compare in a barely favorable way to the disgusting sort that are Islamic fanatics--but the so-called Western industrial nations' political class manage to do that without breaking a sweat.
No wonder the Middle East is a place of blood, fire and turmoil. It reflects the general abominable state of the world's moral decline.

Middle classes everywhere must eventually come to understand that there is no one else who can or who shall act effectively against a chaotic mess which the elites have made and from which they reap obscene profits for themselves. If they don't come to understand that, I don't see where this horror-show ends other than something as yet unprecedented in human history.

By proximity1 (not verified) on 16 Jan 2015 #permalink