I understand the reluctance to embrace “je suis Charlie” by those that do not want to endorse its lampooning of minorities and offending of some Muslims. But the issue is whether we should curtail freedom of speech, either to avoid offending minorities, or to avoid provoking the kind of attacks we saw in Paris. In both cases, I think the answer should be an emphatic “no”.

Freedom of speech is only genuinely free if it includes the right to offend. It is not free if we only permit speech we agree with, or are comfortable with. The real measure of your support for free speech is precisely your willingness to support freedom of expression for opinions you loathe.

That is not the same as saying that all forms of expression are ok or can be exercised without consequence. George’s example of mother-in-law jokes is apt– they haven’t died out because they are illegal, but because they are unacceptable.

This article by Ross Douthat I think makes two important points: you can defend the right to blaspheme without defending blasphemy; and it is precisely when that right is threatened violently that you should defend it most vigorously:

“the kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more.”

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we-need/?_r=0

Giving in to threats is also pointless – does anyone think the Kouachi brothers would have stayed peacefully at home if CH had moderated its publication?

Probably we should do more both to understand the roots of Islamists’ grievances, and we should certainty support the peaceful Muslims majority in our communities.

So for me, both “I’ll ride with you”, and “je suis Charlie”.

‘morning George,

You say; << Most of us are heartened by the outpourings of communal solidarity in the wake of tragedies like this – the flowers, the candlelit vigils. >>

I doubt that assertion very much, on the contrary, many Australians would be alarmed and deeply disturbed, increasingly so, at the hypocrisy of those who are on the one hand enablers and culpable for such acts of savagery, whilst turning up with a faux “tear” for the victims.

The suppression of European values by progressives has created the space for an aggressive “value system” such as Islam, to occupy the space created by the very progressives who turn up to “mourn” the victims.

How absolutely, fabulously, progressively disgusting?

But hey, that’s progressives for you, for the moment anyway.

Hypocrisy and Unicorns Inc. anyone?

Is the issue here free speech, or is it rather the abuse of the privilege of free speech.
It seems to me CH hid behind the curtain of free speech to gratuitously offend. No problem. But then it all got a bit out out of hand, didn't it?
Think of kids playing with matches who accidentally burned the house down. The answer is not to ban matches, nor to stop building houses. The answer is to take the matches away from those irresponsible and poorly educated kids before they burn the neighbourhood down.
And I disagree that to question the official story is to succumb to conspiracy theories. There are intelligent people questioning the official story, and in this, as in so much of the news coming out of the MSM today, we have a choice. We can either swallow the pabulum dished out by Rupert & Co, or we can read and perhaps agree with a much more plausible interpretation.

If people choose to believe in ridiculous things such as gods and prophets and flying horses, then they should not complain when people make fun of their ridiculous beliefs. The fact that they are minorities or of a lower socio-economic status should not give them impunity from ridicule when they are being ridiculous.
Christians have had to put up with being ridiculed for decades now. This has resulted in a massive reduction in those who choose to believe the Christian fairy tales. The same needs to happen to Islam for it to come out of the dark ages. Unfortunately there will be the inevitable backlash from the fundamentalist believers. But I believe that price is worth paying as eventually Islam will follow the same path into oblivion as Christianity is currently taking. This will be a massive benefit to the descendants of todays Muslims, who may no longer be impoverished minorities, but realise full integration into the societies they live in as they embrace reality over fantasy.

Rhys Jones I am not sure how this will happen when the emphasis is on indoctrinating children into religious beliefs when very young. How on earth people believe in religious rubbish is beyond me whether Christian or Muslim, there is no proof a God or Allah exist

There have been some very interesting comments on this whole topic. I know this may seem like an oversimplification to some, but it seems to me that the heart of the matter is that if material offends people, there are ways to deal with that. Taking offence is a choice. Those who were offended by mother-in-law jokes stopped supporting comedians who relied on them, so that they were forced to change their material. I've never seen an edition of 'Charlie Hebdo', but I assume that if their material was grossly offensive to a large percentage of the population, then the magazine would not thrive financially. If I read it and felt offended then I wouldn't buy it any more. Making fun of someone's beliefs is a long way from inciting racial hatred. Beliefs are also a matter of choice. If I choose to have bizarre beliefs then I have to accept that some people may laugh at me for holding those beliefs. I find pornographic magazines offensive and therefore I don't buy them, but I am not justified in killing those who produce them.