Was Nathan Cirillo A Hero? - Part 2

Yesterday's post revolved around a column by The Hamilton Spectator's Andrew Dreschel in which he questioned whether the circumstances of Nathan Cirollo's death qualified him as a hero. I predicted that he would likely be subject to a barrage of criticism, given that the young man's death was so recent, and a state funeral had essentially been accorded him.

Today's piece by editor-in-chief Paul Berton confirmed this. While some comments were supportive, others were not so complimentary:

An online petition urged The Spectator to have Dreschel fired. Others wanted us to remove the column, which was apparently "going viral" on social media, from thespec.com.

Another said,

"How can you print one day that he's a hero and the next day that he is not?"

I was glad, however, to see that Berton is standing his ground:

I acknowledge the timing of the column may have been premature and insensitive, and I take full responsibility for that. But a newspaper should not refuse to print opinions simply because they may offend.

As devastated — and as proud — as so many of us were in Hamilton this week, does wondering what it all means in the modern scheme of things take away from that?

He goes on to say:

But isn't that the nature of any good newspaper — to reflect all opinions, no matter how popular or unpopular?

Isn't that the nature of a democratic community? To make sure we can learn from all events?

The funeral brought this community together — and enlightened us. Might not a frank conversation do the same?

I wonder if the irony is lost on all those thousands who lauded Cirillo for his protection of our freedoms who now seem, through their intolerance, to value it so little?