First provide some facts showing the fire was deliberately set.
Then proceed to identify the culprit.
https://www.counterextremism.com/roundup/eye-extremism-april-15-2019
Why?
Would it be negligent to not consider those facts when investigating the fire?
Would it be negligent to turn a blind eye towards the recent pattern in some sign of social justice towards the Muslim community?
It's one thing to stay publicly quiet. It's another thing to refuse to consider it when investigating behind closed doors. It's negligent for a reporter to not ask the question.
Let the public official respond one way or another. Don't self-censor when it's one's job to be the watchdog.
It would have been okay for Smith to start with the statement he ended with, that there has been a recent rash of church arsons and desecrations in France [with the most recent being attributed by French police to Muslims] but so far there is no link to this fire. It was not okay for a supposed journalist to shut down the mere suggestion of it as it was breaking.
But I will conclude with this: It is simply wrong to begin the discussion of the destruction of the most important humanities icon of the western world, the Cathedral of Notre Dame, with minimizing, with diminution, with caution, with restraint.
The destruction of an 800 year old center of western heritage deserves the most aggressive questioning of why and how, until the most damning causes are eliminated. Then we can move onto the accidental, the careless, the happenstance.
Not the other way around. Let's not treat this like a 7-11 burned down.
-PJ