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.