Paul,

I am glad that you see the need for balance and free speech.

With respect to the racial hatred laws and clause 18c I would like to see the references being objective and measurable. Thus the words that are subjective (ie. a person is offended or insulted if he says so) offend and insult should be removed, and the word vilify (which is objectively defined) left in.

Forcing the press to self censor just in case someone somewhere could take offence is wildly overly restrictive.

Hi, o sung wu

Rushdie was indeed cowed for a while by the Fatwah. He even published an article in 1990 titled “why I have embraced Islam”, and sough to limit publication of new editions of Satanic Verses. He later repudiated his attempts at conciliation, removed the article from later publications, and called for Satanic Verses to be freely available. He and became an increasingly vocal advocate for free speech and opposing Islamic fundamentalism.

I think if anything, Rushdie demonstrates than appeasement of murderous fundamentalism doesn’t work. The Fatwa has still not been cancelled.

Regarding my earlier comments on the tradition of coarse satire in France, this may be of interest:

http://qz.com/322620/the-quintessentially-french-art-of-offensive-cartoons/

SM: (ie. a person is offended or insulted if he says so)

So... If an Aboriginal calls me, White Scum, & I'm insulted. I could have that aboriginal charged under the Act. Ha! I'd like to see that. If some feminist declares that I'm a rapist waiting to happen. That Feminist could be Charged under the Act. Ha! I'd like to see that. If a Jew/Christian/moslem insults me because I'm an Atheist... Er.. No, because that's Religious, isn't it.

I am offended by lots of things Greenies, the Politically Correct, Bible Bashers & Do-Gooders say. Are you suggesting that I could charge them under the Act. If I'm a person that feels they are insulted & say so.

That might be a bit board, I think. You would have a back log of a thousand years, just from me alone. ;-)

Freedom of speech should never be used as an excuse to humiliate and vilify.
We do not sit idly by and accept the vile rubbish that spews from the leaders of IS and we should not stand idly by when our own leaders spew out racism and bigotry.
Or should freedom of speech only apply to westerners?

Hi (again) RHIAN...

I guess I'll have to concede that I'm on my own on this issue. Therefore it's best that I yield now, while my dignity is still intact. LOL :-) I do think you have a good case to argue, that by backing down to these idiot's demands, Charlie HEBDO would be viewed as capitulating to terrorist pressure, and lose a considerable amount of credibility into the bargain.

I don't know RHIAN, I've witnessed so much violence, and so much killing in my life, gee it get's at you, after awhile ? It seems none of us and I do mean 'NONE' of us, seems to realise, nobody ever win's wars, whatever side you may be on ? It's a case of lose lose in the long run ?

Thanks for your responses.

..and, of course, we should remember that the confederates of the Charlie Hebdo attackers randomly killed a policewoman and killed hostages doing their shopping.

That's the mindset - no connection between those innocent people and provocative cartoons.