Rev. Brian J. Kiely, "Cartoons and Bullets", 8 Feb 2015

##########################################
Since he's one of our .
Former journalists in the congregation I've asked John Peter to share a reading on background Charlie Hebdo so this is a.
Brief brief description up sharply Hebdo the.
Satire in France which was attacked.
Back and early January Charly hemphill.
In on clay its Charlie Hebdo this is a description in a box which is an online news magazine.
The writer is Libby Nelson really good description Charlie Hebdo its history humor and controversies.
Charlie Hebdo is a weekly French satirical news magazine published since 1970.
Although it had a long hiatus between 81 to 90 to.
It's known especially for its provocative cartoons and caricatures.
Charlie Hebdo is part of a long tradition of political satire in France.
Its at a church Stefan shopping yay who was killed by gunmen describe the newspapers positions in 2012.
Has left wing secular atheist its best known for publishing cartoons.
Marking religion and religious extremism specially though not exclusively Islam.
Islamic extremism and the Prophet Muhammad.
The cartoons can be raunchy hand are made to provoke.
Magazine has been attacked in the past 10 2011 after it published in issue.
Guest edited by the Prophet Muhammad 100 lashes if you don't die of laughter.
Their website was hacked and the Paris office is firebombed take miss a cartoonist who was killed in January's massacre had previously said that the best not only make the reader to laugh and think they provoke shame for having been able to laugh it's such a serious situation.
I was often the sentiment Charlie Hebdo.
Aimed for Charlie Hebdo is not greatly popular although its weekly circulation was around 50,000 it often struggled financially.
Am back in November it asked for donations can order to keep its doors open.
The magazine made fun of prominent politicians religion and pop culture but it lampooned Islam and Islamic extremists with particular zeal 2006 additional Charlie Hebdo included the infamous Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad which sparked riots that left more than 250 people dead around the world it put a crying Mohammed on the cover with the speech bubble saying.
Quote it's hard being left by assholes.
The newspaper also marked the pope.
Showing Pope Benedict the 16th holding a condom and declaring this is my body and in a loving embrace with the vatican card Charlie Hebdo had a well-earned reputation for focusing on Islam extremist and not many Muslims consider portrayals at the Prophet Muhammad to be a serious insult and religious offense and Charlie Hebdo 25 despite character in him frequently including in at least one instance shown as newt and bent over.
Lower outlays JS Charlie Hebdo staffer who survived the attack told CNN back in 2012 the aim is to laugh we want to laugh at the extremists every extremist they can be Muslim Jewish Catholic everyone can be religious extremist thoughts and acts we cannot.
Except Charlie Hebdo as he said is part of a tradition serious satire in France most to that much less comic comforting and political satire in the US and Canada their former satire am is an anarchic populist former obscenity.
That aims to cut down anything that would direct itself as venerable secret we're partial we don't know yet exactly why the three suspects identified in the attack singled out Charlie Hebdo.
But here are some important pieces of context Charlie Hebdo has been attacked before and had some serious security precautions for small circulation magazine.
Its old offices were firebombed in 2011.
After the guest edited Prophet Muhammad issue appeared since then it's been under police protection still while many Muslims may have found Charlie Hebdo offensive the vast majority of Muslims reject violence.
And focusing on the cartoons in the issue blasphemy is somewhat of a red herring.
Real provocation the attack was not the cartoons or any offense they may have given.
Grad psychopathic mines in ideologies have the killers thank you john.
The recent.
Shocking murders in Paris have prompted.
Impassioned cries have outrage as well as discussions about the right to free speech about the rise.
Terrorism about the contrast between mainstream.
Islam and radical Islam -ism and to a somewhat lesser degree about.
Civility in the public discourse and that's really the question I wish to address today but let me begin by stating something as clearly as I possibly can.
Murder and violence is never an acceptable form.
Protest responding to the mighty pen with a mighty your sword is not a constructive answer the cartoonists and staff surely Abdul.
Should be alive today the police officers guarding them should be alive today the hostages who died in the subsequent manhunt.
Should be alive today even the killers.
Should be alive today that's not what this sermon is about that violence is not an answer is so self.
Evident it does not deserve a sermon I'm more interested in the boundaries of free discussion.
Disagreement and debate if there is to be growth and maturation in society.
If there is to be progress in the continuing journey towards real.
Foale and equal human rights for all.
Then there will have to be free and open discussions.
And the leading edges have such conversations will.
Always be fraught with tension the March real.
Equality and freedom means some who have Ralph power and control will have to share what they have have to abandon.
Old self-serving and.
Ill-informed believes and change their ways at least to a degree and this is true whether we're talking about a powerful.
First world leader in some great nation.
Or some tribal chief.
Revoke developing party world whenever there is change there are lawson's and there are games.
And the mark abandon like and citizen to the world.
Is the recognition that the unseen gains.
Will benefit more than the change will cost.
Even if the gains are for society as a whole.
And the losses are more personal even those of us in the middle class masses will have to make accommodations.
Set aside distrust move out of our own and claims.
Culture and class and truly learn about the people the needs beliefs and the cultures up those.
Who.
Are different from us diversity must.
Bridge the gaps between communities else it is not diversity.
At all it is I'm easy toleration no way to build those bridges is through open in genuine communication through listening a lot speaking little especially for those of us who come from a place of privilege.
Isolationist we're right and you're not so leave us alone thinking to change will not bring peace.
Or progress nor will they forge connections were diminished hatred violent action at best only serves to suppress those who hate but the violence deepens the hatred itself in fact is we've seen over generations in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Violent action tends to create on the future generations who carry on the hatred to an even more violent degree violence begets violence and cost.
Is terribly high so the better passes through respectful peaceful discussion discussions that can take.
Decades and even generations and the best discussions.
Are those were both parties agree at the outset.
To take as little fence as possible.
And anything that might be said and secondly to name the offenses.
And commit to talking them through storming out.
And preparing to respond with violence does not advance the conversation it only serves to dig deeper trenches.
For those who choose a path have hatred you progress comes from civil discourse.
That's what are unitary in universalist principles teach progress comes from affirming.
One another not degrading other people.
Progress comes from recognizing the worth and dignity up all from committing to achieving justice.
Equality and fairness for all people and for following the path to democratic.
Dick discussion as we try to resolve our differences the killings in Paris should never have happened and were wrong in every sense of the word and yet they were somewhat predictable.
Because disrespect coming from those.
Who were acting from a position of privilege the cartoonist that routinely dared to cross the line acceptable discourse too many times though calling it satire they frequently opted for with New York Times.
Editor Dean back at called gratuitous insult.
Doe not access physical violence they're decidedly anti-islam and to a lesser degree anti-religion stances were not designed.
To be discussions have progress they were meant to insult to tear down religious belief let me be clear.
I'm not blaming the victims they had a right to say.
What they have to say even if wasn't smart to say.
Even people with high-risk lifestyles.
Do not deserve to be the victims of violence but let there be be no mistake shali folks virtues in high-risk lifestyle this late editors the phone shop on you famously said after receiving death threats two years ago.
What I'm about to say maybe a little pompous but I'd rather die standing up.
Than live on my knees I was reading suggested we do not know exactly why the killers track are we likely to ever know for sure.
Their debt but the frequent and ridiculing attacks on Islam are likely tied to the violence in some way.
Much has been written about free speech.
And the sometimes crew traditions a French satire in recent weeks.
And in the first hours after the tragedy free speech seemed to be the critical narrative in the street actions in the wake the Charlie Hebdo killings people in France flooded the public squares.
Carrying just three Charlie signs instantly Zhu sweet Charlie became.
A worldwide phenomenon in social media and many of my you ministerial colleagues posted the mean on their pages and even adopted it as their profile image.
People were protesting peacefully on behalf of free and standing in solidarity with slain cartoonists who were quote merely making fun religion I could not bring myself 3 post or claim that mean Shin a sweep of Charlie.
Why not because they disapprove of free speech.
I celebrate free speech but because surely.
Don't was a sometimes hateful magazine promoting hatred their images frequently went beyond.
Even the most elastic boundaries have good taste and in my view the valuable purpose upside higher is to poke.
At power to point out inconsistencies and flaws and downright silliness in major institutions like government in yes religion as well laughing at absurdity is a good thing its tension relieving it's pointed and often moves the social discourse.
A world without editorial cartoons are the whip have someone like Rick Mercer would be a poorer place in my view and.
Satire is bound to offend somebody or its not doing its job.
Goes back to what I was saying about those who have power and privilege in any level are loath to give it up and are not amused by people who would poke fun at them.
Sat arrests cross lines accidentally or even.
Intentionally as they try to figure out where the line is but looking at the significant body of Charlie Hebdo work is to see a magazine that was routinely interested in completely ignoring the line shali did not just point out that the Emperor had no clothes it splashed paint on the clothes hamper was wearing and then mocked him for having can't on his club's and apparently I'm not.
Alone in thinking that it was an an impressive if controversial for the murders notta lotta red Charlie Hebdo in the nation up sixty 6 million people magazine circulation.
Was fifty thousand barely enough copies to stay alive and that's one-tenth the circulation far more popular competitor the canal Shanae that has been credited with changing policies and toppling scandals opening up scandals.
Entrance on news commentator noted how Charlie got itself in trouble in the past.
In September 2012 the newspaper published a series a satirical cartoons of Muhammad some which featured nude characters have him given that this issue came.
Days after a series of attacks on US embassies in the Middle East.
In the wake up the releases the inflammatory American Christian film.
Innocence Islam the French government decided to increase security as well as close French embassies in about 20 Muslim countries in addition riot police surrounded the offices a the magazine to protected from possible attacks Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius criticized the magazine's decision saying.
In France there is a principal a freedom of expression which should not be undermined but in the present context is it really sensible are intelligent for.
Oil on the fire and US white house stated.
Obviously we have questions about the judgment publishing something like this.
It seems that many questioned the wisdom to the editors who felt that there right to freely insult a great faith tradition outweighed the safety French diplomatic workers abroad since their officers had already been subjected to a firebombing they were not acting ignorance rather they were responding hate for hate this will never advance the public discourse in Canada there is a principal a freedom of speech as well but it has limits under the Criminal Code.
To be sure the limits are very broad lead depressing precious few prosecutions.
Mostly they have to do with genocide.
Those that have been prosecuted our law would not have blocked the publication.
The offending cartoons but the laws do said a Tom.
For encouraging respectful discourse many Canadian media outlets chose to not be published the persian cartoons and those that did tended to reprint least a chance once David Studer.
The CBC director journalistic standards and practices said that the CB cedar decided against running the cartoons arguing that to show these depictions of Muhammad would needlessly.
Offend Muslims who considered the depictions sacrilege he was widely criticized for his view including by people in the CBC I heard several in the interviews.
Mostly because other people were already publishing them so what harm could there be.
Yet student was not alone in arguing restraint.
The New York Times executive editor Dean back at told to take newspapers public editor that he spent about half the day deciding whether or not to publish the cartoons changing his mind.
Twice before ultimately deciding not.
To run the images he said we have a standard that his long-held.
And that serves us well that there is a lie.
There is a line between and satire and most these are gratuitous insult I have to admit on a personal note that there is something deeply satisfying.
About the gratuitous insult when one is angry.
Just ask my daughter's about some of the things I say in the car well commenting on other event and drivers my choice of words in those instances has decided little to do with advancing rational discourse.
Or building bridges with those drivers born I have.
Fear or anger such colorful characterizations are outlets for emotions they are not intended.
To advance the public discourse but then.
Neither are they published beyond the confines.
My van those who.
Right and draw and speak in public must be held to a higher standard.
Or perhaps I should say those people need to hold themselves to a higher standard they have a responsibility to consider the impact up their words and their images.
And I have mostly disdain for those who use their public stage to incite hate and to twist fact in order to divide.
And promote self a grand Ising agendas.
And yes I am using diplomatic restraint when I suggest what I feel is mostly stain this goes way beyond what Charlie Hebdo was doing and starts to include.
Anybody who is having insulting hateful speech.
Speech is and must be free but is it too much to ask that it be grounded.
Rational discourse and two main principles.
And respectful is it.
Unreasonable restraint to ask commentators to take into account.
The sensibilities have both their audiences and those who take offense at their pieces I don't think so i'm for the challenges have satire but I'm not in favor of the gross and gratuitous insult I'm here I'm now expanding beyond Charlie Hebdo and I'm talking about things like Sun Media and Fox News.
I'm talking about. organizations where yelling at commentators who are trying to advance rational discourse is seen to be good journalism it's not it's insulting.
It's rude its crude and it demeans.
Both the audience and the journalists.
The so-called journalists I think such choices are disrespectful.
To those under attack into their audiences.
Journalist should be appealing to our higher nature.
And not her picture stinks I am for free speech.
But I'm not for hateful speech so Shin a sweep of Charlie thank you.


##########################################