Satire or hatred?

I have been in a most interesting conversation this morning regarding the awful goings on in France over the past few day, the focus quite naturally being the Charlie Hebdo magazine.

One of the thing that has brought me us short were two questions, 'As a Christian:

Do you think that the magazine's cartoons and comments could be regarded as a 'hate crime?

If they are does this diminish the acts against the magazine and its staff?'

Two pretty difficult questions to answer indeed especially as I'd have to say that from my erratic reading of the magazine the front cover cartoon hits out at things to do with religion around probably no more than ten covers a year. Hebdo has published the Pope with a condom where the host should have been (and that's pretty offensive if you're a Catholic), presented us with a Cartoon Mary and Jesus (their Christmas special gift to Christians I guess) and portrayed religions and toilet paper (and a reference to them all belonging down the toilet!) and the done a bit of Israel vs Palestine stuff before hitting out at, and depicting, things Islamic.

Had the nation in which the words which were written and the images displayed been ours I think the possibility of them having been labelled as 'hate crime' is great (and would probably called into action the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006) as there is a case to claim that hatred against people on the basis of their religious views has been enacted.

The problem is that Hebdo is not the finely polished satirical magazine that we in the UK are used to thanks to the likes of Private Eye (of which I am an avid reader and great fan). No way can they be compared for Hebdo is something more akin to the scandal sheets, complete with the vitriol, that has been the French model of the satirical (and often spiteful) genre. It not only pokes fun but wounds and then pokes fingers in the wounds too!

But regardless of the way it writes we can say nothing other than to denounce the response from the Kouachi brothers as being something totally unacceptable and absolutely wrong!
Which has to be the answer to the second question methinks.

There is however an interesting consequence of this tragic episode in that I am hearing people affirm the view that regardless of what Hebdo says there is an important principle at stake here: the inalienable right of people to say what they think regardless of the views, or response, of others. This will undoubtedly be put to the test when the next edition appears for the consensus is that it will undoubtedly have a cartoon along the lines of that which lit the fuse in the first place.

Not only that but we are also seeing people, and nations, proclaim the defence of this right as being without question a key element of civilised and free society - another positive to emerge from this sorry tale.

I wonder whether this means that those who choose to differ or disagree with others will now find themselves free from attack (generally verbal, sometimes legal, and usually including character assassination)?

As much as I despise the positions and opinions of some, I have always maintained the view that to oppress or suppress freedom of speech is to drive people underground and remove ourselves from a place of dialogue or influence with them. I wonder if the Hebdo incident will herald a more tolerant world?

I guess time will tell :-)