I’ve been in the news business for less than a year, but the terrorist attack in Paris hit too close to home. Obviously, the only similarity the Santa Rosa Press Gazette and Charlie Hebdo share is the fact they’re both printed publications for sale. For those who may somehow be unaware, January 7, Islamic extremists attacked the offices of a French magazine called Charlie Hebdo in Paris. In total, 12 died including the editor and noted cartoonists. This was not the end of the violence. As CNN reported, “The next day, a French policewoman was gunned down. On the third and final day, four hostages were killed when a terrorist seized a Jewish grocery.”
It almost seems in poor taste to try to calmly consider multiple sides of this story. Did the writers, illustrators, and editors of Charlie Hebdo provoke these extremists? Was Charlie Hebdo’s work in poor taste? Does any kind of written provocation warrant this level of violence? To the last, of course, I say no. How will we censor ourselves now? No violence came of the threats against those who would show or watch The Interview, following the massive cyber attack against Sony. It appeared bullies backed down and the exercise of free speech won. However, Europe, namely Denmark, has been dealing with censorship over Islam for over a decade, a debate that spilled on to our shores. A highlight of this trouble was the Comedy Central censorship of images of the prophet Muhammad from South Park in 2006. Are Trey Parker and Matt Stone, creators of South Park, somewhere in the sights of the radicals? Am I? I said his name after all. Is that enough? Had I the illustrative prowess, I would depict the prophet Muhammad as the leader of a sect of sorcerers with the moniker “he who must not be drawn.” I tend to boil down situations on a world scale to individuals. Countries, world leaders, and populations become members of a family or community. In this case, the class bully cut the head off of the class clown for drawing mean pictures of his daddy.
It seems sick to create any kind of object lesson out of these attacks. What did we learn? What’s the take-away here? It seems a cold and distant reaction. The same jerks who threatened lives and set firebombs over nonsense in the past continue to do so. I think this is the most I’ll take away. Evil persists. Now, I wouldn’t call the work of Charlie Hebdo “good” as if offending is a righteous act, but it does serve to root out who the most violent in the world tend to be. Reactions in the world may also root out who prefers safety over freedom.
This article originally appeared on Santa Rosa Press Gazette: Je suis Charlie