Good evening RHIAN...

You obviously have a better knowledge of France and their lifestyles, so I'll not try to contradict anything you've said herein.

Look I'm all for freedom of speech, the print and electronic media etc. I'm in know way trying to refute anything along those lines OK. But with these lunatics, they're not in anyway predictable, and they obviously have no morality, so why on earth do we paint a target on are collective arses for goodness sake ! It's stupid, not at all courageous !

We're NOT backing down OK. We're using our brains hopefully, what's the point of spilling the innocent blood of a dozen lives, and then scream from the rooftops "...OK you bastards you can't beat us, we'll never yield our rights to freedom of speech..." and go off and bury a dozen cadavers ! It's blatant craziness in my opinion !

Hi there JAYB...

Surely you can understand my reasoning here ? It would make as much sense as wandering around outside the wire, for a leisurely Saturday afternoon stroll, up the Long Hai's 'unarmed' ? It's not that we're relinquishing our right to freedom of speech, of the media and electronic media, it's simply common sense is all !

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You ask :

« Freedom of Speech - Is it too big a price to pay? »
.

That is a difficult question to answer. I guess it depends on what is at stake. What the price is, who has to pay and when.

As the context is the carnage perpetrated by the jihadists during their recent rampage in Paris against Charlie Hebdo, a Jewish grocery store and the police, unfortunately, not all those who had to “pay the price” received any “freedom of speech” in return. It might be said they got short-changed.

That includes a young police woman who was attending to a car accident in the street and was shot in the back simply because she was wearing a police uniform. It includes an office cleaner on his first day at work in the building where Charlie Hebdo was located. It also includes the four customers in the grocery store who were presumed to be Jewish. None of those poor people received any “freedom of speech” in exchange for their lives.

A policeman who had been wounded in the street was callously finished-off with a bullet in the head as he lay on the ground looking up at the terrorists as they left the building. They did not ask him if he wanted to express an opinion on anything before casually pulling the trigger.

The same fate befell the policeman who had been assigned to “Charb”, the editor of the magazine, as his personal bodyguard, and also Bernard Maris, a reputed economist (a board member of the Bank of France) who was both a shareholder of Charlie Hebdo and a regular columnist. Ditto Elsa Cayat, a psychoanalyst and columnist, the only female member of the team. Nobody asked them if they had anything to say.

Then there was Mustapha Ourrad, the copy editor and Michel Renaud, who happened to be visiting the magazine at the time. Nobody asked them their opinion.

Finally, there were the five cartoonists, including “Charb”. They knew the price for them and their families and paid up.

.

@Steelie

Steelie playing his usual marketing role for Islam ...mischievously deals the anti-Jew card: <<I imagine many anti-Islam comments here wouldn't pass the muster if couched around Judaism>>

Well Steelie, you wouldn't need any imagination to know that any of the about <<anti-Islam comments>> would NOT pass muster in any polity where Islam is the dominant force --which is much of the Middle East --want to squawk about that?

The Liberal Parties extreme rights mouth peace Cory Bernardi has tried to politicise the attack in Paris by once more calling for an easing of Australia's race hate laws. This is exactly what the perpetrators and the supporters of these vile acts want. This is not the time to try and alienate moderate Muslims in our society who also condemn this kind of outrage. Such action would be counter productive in the extreme.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/charlie-hebdo-attack-prompts-renewed-calls-for-racehate-law-changes-in-australia-20150112-12m7d6.html

Some moderates in Australia are also questioning what they see as disproportionate outrage over this attack.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/charlie-hebdo-attack-panislamic-group-hizb-uttahrir-australia-says-selective-moral-outrage-over-massacre-is-disproportionate-20150112-12mho6.html

Paul,

It's not just Cory Bernadi calling for a revision of the race hate laws, but pretty much everyone concerned about press freedom.

The irony is that we have people from all persuasions supposedly standing in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and its right of free expression, forgetting that the magazine would be banned in Australia because it offended people.

Shadow, I understand the point you are making. How do you strike a balance, whereby the law would not protect those that want to insight hatred in the community, and genuine free speech.