Should the media re-print the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoons?

In the aftermath of the murder of twelve people at Charlie Hebdo (as well as the murder of one police officer by another adherent to radical Islam – and the death of four hostages), world media has grappled with the whether or not to re-print Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoons. These cartoons are potentially offensive to most Muslims who are opposed to depictions of the Prophet Muhammad because of a genuinely held religious belief centered on idolatry. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.” This is one of the Ten Commandments. Idolatry plays a role in Christianity and Judaism, too.

CBC’s The Current held an interesting “Eye On The Media” segment in which this issue was discussed by Denise Bombardier (columnist with the Journal de Montreal), David Studer (director of Journalistic Standards and Practices at CBC News), and Andrew Coyne (columnist and the Editorial and Comments editor at the National Post).

The Journal de Montreal ran the cartoons. Denise noted that most French language news outlets worldwide ran the cartoons. She argued, passionately, that running the cartoons was a symbol of solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and the victims – three of whom she knew personally. Although she is correct – it is a strong sign of solidarity – this does not justify running the cartoons. There are lots of ways to show solidarity and to stand for freedom of expression without running the offensive cartoons. Imagine the message of solidarity that would be sent if every single newspaper in the world printed an all-black cover with white letters, “Je Suis Charlie.” A powerful message indeed, without the depiction of Muhammad. In fact, many world publications ran a variety of cartoons of their own creation of palpable solidarity, without depicting Muhammad.

CBC did not run the cartoons. David argued that CBC News would not have run the cartoons prior to the murders as cartoons like them risk offending most Muslims. Thus, why should the CBC run them after the murders? He argued that terrorism is intended to change our behaviour and that refusing to reprint the cartoons was a stronger statement. In addition, his argument was that coverage of this news story was not enhanced by the republication of the cartoons and there was no sense in risking offence to most Muslims. He is wrong. For two reasons.

CBC News is not in the business of publishing satirical news or cartoons that will gratuitously offend. But, surely CBC News is not in the business of never offending anyone? Media is a balance. What is the importance and newsworthiness of X measured against the inflammatory nature of X? CBC News, for instance, did not show video of the Paris police officer executed on the sidewalk outside Charlie Hebdo. This is the same question – offense v. newsworthiness? The graphic depiction of this sidewalk execution does not advance the story or make clearer the awfulness of the act.

Once twelve people are murdered, the cartoons in question are broadly newsworthy. Don’t we – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – want to understand what is so offensive as to motivate the murder of twelve people who draw and publish cartoons? This is important. The twisted beliefs of the two shooters – and their leaders if they were centrally controlled – is made particularly apparent when we see the cartoons. These are not horrible, hateful, shockingly inflammatory cartoons. These are satirical attacks on the worst parts of religion – all religion. Yes, Muslims may be offended by them but the cartoons were much, much less offensive than they could have been. If your sole goal is to offend Islam, you would draw something much more inflammatory and demeaning then what the artists at Charlie Hebdo did.

The cartoons are intimately contextual to the abhorrent murders that they caused.

The other reason that David is wrong is that with freedom of expression comes the expectation that people will accept a certain amount of offence. Just as freedom of speech is a fundamental right in Canada, so is the expectation that Canadians will tolerate free speech. In other words, if you want to be free to speak your mind (or practise your religion) then it is expected that you will tolerate it when others speak theirs. Including when others are critical of what you have to say. The burqa offends me. But I will march in solidarity with those that choose to wear it (provided it is a genuine, free choice). None of us should avoid offending others at all costs, least of all the media. 

The cartoons are in intrinsically important context to the murders. Reprinting them will cause some offense by some Muslims. Well, some offence has been taken by just about everyone in Western democracies at the murder of twelve people who drew and published pictures lampooning the silly, backwards, contradictory, hypocrisy of fundamentalism whether Muslim, Jewish, or Christian. 

Accepting some offence is one part of the price we pay for freedom of expression.

The National Post ran the cartoons on page five. Andrew had it right.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Evelyn Beatrice Hall.