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.

Rhys, I agree with your comments.
The pretend realm of religion where personal responsibilty is transferred to some kind of supreme being just provides an object to blame for your own mistakes, or to praise when you do something well. A behavioural and moral cop-out.

However, regardless of which publication prints cartoons mocking the various religious figureheads overlooks another important matter; the presumed right for migrants to a nation to impose their beliefs and rules of life upon a host citizenry.
There is sound logic behind the old saying "when in Rome, do as the Romans do", or equally apt "if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen".

It all comes down to personal courteous acceptance of the rights of others, but also the responsibility of those with a strong opinion or belief system to justify it, not impose it.

I think George should consider the following points. Australia is a very tolerant, friendly and polite society. I am confident that any attempt to be rude to a muslim would result in plenty of support by Australians and the "I will ride with you" is pompous nonsense promoted incidentally by a nasty little racist.
Point two is that religion is just superstitious nonsense. Any migrant who thinks he is entitled to kill someone for being abusive to his religion should be booted out. In fact they should be weeded out in our immigration programs.
Point three George, if you do not like this, take yourself off to some third world hole where religion is part of their scene as it certainly is not ours.

I just can't understand what's that big deal about freedom of speech:

We are not free to piss into our neighbours yard - because it's offensive.
Anyone who claims a "right" to offend others verbally or visually must logically conclude that they ought to also have the right to piss in their yard.

You should of course be able to say what you like so long as those who do not want to hear it - for whatever reason - do not have to hear it: their eardrums are not yours!

Je ne suis pas Charlie!

George, from what I've seen of Charlies cartoons many would be deeply offensive to most muslims, not just extremists.

Another aspect of the debate is the focus on minority status. In my view a very subjective measure based on arbitary boundaries especially in an age where global travel and communication is the norm.

My impression is that Charlie in this case is the minority if one needs to be determined. Hard to get figures on the number of athiests around http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism but it appears that by most measures muslims with as I understand it numbers of around 1.5 billion outnumber athiests. With a regular printing run of around 60k prior to the attack Charlie did not seem to represent a great proportion of the French population.

There are times where the minority term makes a lot of sense but to often it is used based on some quite arbitrary measures to provide a "special case" to support a favored cause. Sometimes we just use it because someone else has without thinking it through.

Its quite possible that Charlie represented a power block with access to the powerful that was not available to most French muslims but that in my view does not fit the majority/minority tag. Its a different measure that has little or nothing to do with numbers.

R0bert

Yuyutsu believes we should not be allowed to offend anyone. What about animal rights vegans who find the fact that their neighbours continue to eat meat offensive? Should be we forced to give up meat so they are no longer offended? What about homosexuals who are deeply offended when Christians refer to them as an abomination unto god? Should the Christians be silenced? What about the Christians who are offended by homosexuals claiming their relationships are as valid as their heterosexual counterparts? Should the homosexuals be silenced?
What about the refugee advocates who are offended by those who say "turn back the boats"? Or the anti refugee people who are offended when others call them racist? Do we all need to remain silent? Or just those who you don't agree with?
If we are to live in a pluralistic multi-cultural society, it is imperative that we accept that we will often be offended by what others say and do. The alternative is either a society where no-one can speak their mind, or a homogeneous society where everyone has the same values. That is the kind of society that ISIS is trying to create. I would choose the free speech myself.

Dear Rhys,

<<What about animal rights vegans who find the fact that their neighbours continue to eat meat offensive? Should be we forced to give up meat so they are no longer offended?>>

Of course not, you just don't need to deliberately tell them that you eat meat or to do it deliberately in front of them.

<<What about homosexuals who are deeply offended when Christians refer to them as an abomination unto god? Should the Christians be silenced?>>

A "Christian" like that should not be talking to homosexuals, knowing well that they do not want to hear from them. Doing so deliberately should be a criminal offence. Obviously they can talk about abominations all Sunday in their churches if they like.

<<What about the Christians who are offended by homosexuals....?>>

Homosexuals have no legitimate need to tell "Christians" about their relationships, whom they know don't want to hear from them.

<<What about the refugee advocates who are offended by those who say "turn back the boats"?>>

If politicians say so in order to offend them, then it's obviously wrong. The proper place to present political policies is on the party's website, so those interested can look. People should be able to place a sticker "no political material" on their letter-boxes and this should be respected.

<<Or the anti refugee people who are offended when others call them racist? Do we all need to remain silent? Or just those who you don't agree with?>>

If you know that a person would be offended when you call them "racist", then you shouldn't do so - regardless of their reason(s).

<<If we are to live in a pluralistic multi-cultural society, it is imperative that we accept that we will often be offended by what others say and do.>>

Yes, accidental offending happens and is probably unavoidable, but one should still do their best to avoid offending others.

<<The alternative is either a society where no-one can speak their mind...>>

One should still be able to speak their mind, but do so with your friends and others who are willing to hear you.

To George Morgan.

Muslims believe that anybody who insults their prophet should be murdered. That has been Sharia Law for 1400 years and importing Muslims into western societies is not going to change their opinion. That does not mean that if you insult Muhammad that every Muslim will attack you and either beat or kill you, but some of them most certainly will because it has always been socially approved behaviour within their communities for centuries.

Now, I am not going tio walk up to a Muslim and say that Muhammad was a war mongering, genocidal, ant Semitic paedophile, even though he was all of those things. To start with, the Muslim may violently attack me, but the main reason I would not do it is because such behaviour is offensive and extremely impolite.

But when an Australian converts to Islam and gives his 11 year old daughter in marriage to a Muslim man (as what happened in Maitland NSW only recently) then it is pertinent to ask why Muslim men think that marrying and having sex with 11 year old girls is OK. And the reason is, because Muhammad did it, and he was beloved of God, so it must be OK.

So then we are obliged to point out to Muslims that Muhammad was a paedophile. What he did was wrong. And if that bloody well "offends" Muslims, then that is just too bad. If Muslims want to live in the west, either accept our values, or as the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam recently said, '"Ferk off!"

The freedom to comment upon any social issue is fundamental to a free society. There is a huge difference between being offensive just for the sake of being offensive, and being offensive for a good reason. Most of us can make that connection. Freedom of speech does not mean that anyone has the right to walk down a beach and call young Australian women "cat meat sluts" or walk in front of a mosque screaming that Mohammad was a paedophile.

Dear LEGO,

In order to have Muslims stop marrying 11 year-old girls, telling them that Muhammad was a paedophile is the least to achieve this ("if Muhammad was a paedophile, then proudly so am I").

Instead, you should point out to them that Muhammad was NOT a paedophile, that these are just late stories about him.

Neither Muhammad's name nor "Islam" was strangely ever mentioned in all conquered lands at least until 690 A.D. when some king claimed in passing to have written the Koran himself (in contradiction to the claim that it was written in 634 A.D.), then nothing else was mentioned until 710 A.D. and throughout the 8th century there was very scant information about Muhammad, including coins that had his name on one side and a cross on the other (which is of course an abomination by current Muslim standards). It is only in the 9th century that vast information about Muhammad suddenly appeared, which was full of contradictions, thus someone assembled and declared 3% thereof as "Hadith Sahih", ascribing a [fake] lineage to it, while the rest was either forgotten or declared unreliable.

The Koran itself mentions on the one hand that it is perfect and on the other that many other verses were lost (some according to one Hadith because Aisha's sheep ate the manuscript). I suppose that the sheep ate the verses where Muhammad speaks against paedophilia...

It would be so much more effective to tell Muslims about this good and saintly man Muhammad, who's personal history was later besmirched by 9th-century power-seekers and paedophiles in order to justify their own perverse rule!

"The greatest enemies of God are those who are entered into Islam, and do acts of infidelity, and who without cause, shed the blood of man."
- Muhammad, http://muslimcanada.org/hadiths.html#Islam

Hal mentioned last week,

" the abuse of the privilege of free speech."

Isn't that the point ? That free speech should be able to be exercised right to the limits of that 'privilege' ? What does it mean to abuse such a privilege ? If it's a right, then it's a right right up to its limits.

Then Yuyutsu dragged this idiotic red herring about pissing on someone's yard. What on earth is the connection with free speech ? [God, what have I asked for :( ]

There would be laws against harassing someone in the next yard, causing a nuisance, intimidating, etc., and most certainly laws of trespass (at least) if you pissed into your neighbour's yard, if he bothered to collect the evidence and bring charges. If you pissed ON him, he could also go you for assault. Give it a go, Yuyutsu, test the law :)

Joe