Paris

It is hard not to feel the the pain, the anger and the fear that the people of Paris must be experiencing. For people of all faiths, the vast majority of whom spend little or no time thinking bad or in fact any thoughts about those of another faith, to be caught up, once again, in the absurdity of people being killed because someone thinks that that their faith is being mocked is unfair, unjust and lacking all rational sense. There has never been, nor will there ever be any logic or moral validity in killing someone because of what they have said or in this case have drawn.

France and the rest of what has been traditionally referred to as the "western world" have some cause to be concerned as to the possible consequences of the events of the past week. But world leaders, those who purport to have expertise in dealing with those who are labelled as terrorists and the international press should be careful about reducing the nightmare in Paris to being simply about terrorism and the freedom of the press. While there can never be any excuse for any acts of violence, the press is not entire without some responsibility for creating the situation.

As Jeet Heer noted in his opinion piece in the Globe and Mail of January 10/15, satire perhaps works better when it comes from the perspective of the underdog. Johnathan Swift in his classical satirical piece A Modest Proposal was clearly mocking the unfair, unthinking rule of the English in Ireland in the 1700s The Irish were being oppressed and abused by their English conquerors - they had few if any tools to demand change. Satire was an entirely appropriate means of raising public awareness. Satire is a way for the oppressed to get attention or to gain support when the weight of the oppressor prevents the powerless from being heard.

Satire is not an effective weapon when used by the elite to further the oppression of those who feel disenfranchised. At best it is a heavy club used to reinforce those feelings of isolation and separation. Satire when used by the powerful becomes yet another tool to mock those without power or opportunity.  While it may be useful for a French journalist to create a satirical cartoon mocking the Catholic church, it is not equally as appropriate for the same author to mock the founder of Islam. There is no valid journalistic reasoning to satirize the faith of a group that feels marginalized and ignored by French society. 

While one hopes that no Christian would get violent over it, one could wonder what some would do if the Moslem press  in a Muslin countries published cartons of Jesus being naked doing silly things.