Today marks one week since the Islamist assault on the anti-clerical satirical French magazine
Charlie Hebdo, a publication which has published — and
continues to publish — cartoons mocking Mohammed, the founder of the Muslim religion. The world reacted in horror at not just the senseless deaths at the hands of madmen but at the symbolism of the attack: that in a free and secular society, the freedom of expression might be held hostage to fanatical barbarism.
Many of those who condemned the attack were quick to point out that the publication was not merely anti-Islam but anti-Catholicism, anti-Judaism and anti-
any non-secular belief system (examples of such cartoons can be viewed
here and
here, but warning: some are quite graphic and sexual in nature). What's more, despite being a generally Left-wing outfit,
Charlie Hebdo was frequently accused of indulging in racism in the process of staking out its positions. An excellent appraisal of their cover depicting the kidnapping and rape victims of Boko Haram as welfare queens is explained
here, and I promise never to link to
Vox again if you promise to read it.
But for all of the high praise given
Charlie Hebdo for its defiance in the face of violence — its offices had been
firebombed for portraying Mohammed before, with no casualties — there has been criticism, as well. Yes, the killings of the magazine's staff were unjustified, the
critics argue, but so too was their mockery uncalled for. And here we are faced with the question: Just because we
can do something, does it mean we
should?
