A distinction should be made between words and action.

Blasphemy, ridicule and criticism are not the same as discrimination in employment housing and education along with depriving individuals of life, liberty and property. The former should be legal in a democratic society, and the latter should not be allowed. Cartoons, no matter how offensive are in the former category. The latter is not. The latter was done to the Jews in Nazi Germany. The latter is criminal to do to anyone in democratic France.

Muslims in contemporary France are an underclass. However, that can be remedied through education and fair employment initiatives. However, blasphemy, ridicule and criticism are the price of living in a democratic society. As long as the line between blasphemy, ridicule and criticism and incitement, harassment and discrimination is not crossed one just has to live with and accept the former.

Dear SPQR,

So pleased to hear that you have friends.

david f,

".... I thought in coming to Australia from the US I might get away from rock and roll and country music but no such luck"

I quite like the folk music of the Us, but then that's not 'Country Music' which I also loathe along with rock an' roll.

We do have something in common :)

Dear Crowie,

Very wise, I completely agree.

I just want to add that it's not possible to humiliate the prophet, who is long dead.

---

Dear David,

<<blasphemy, ridicule and criticism are the price of living in a democratic society.>>

So one is expected to pay a price for something they did not choose?
Isn't this logically like blaming a woman who has been raped?

Only very few were asked whether they want to be subjected to democracy: the original intention of democracy was to prevent harassment, say by an evil tyrant king - but if democracy itself becomes the cause of harassment, then who needs it?

.

Dear david f

.

You recalled (on page 7 of this thread) :

« A Japanese friend visited me in Australia. He thought Australia had much in common with Japan.»
.

I regret to have to admit that he may well be right.

When I was a kid I used to play war games shooting Japs. They were my enemies. Much later in life I had to do business with them and had difficulty suppressing the instinct of revulsion that surged up inside me every time I saw one. I had never seen any in Australia.

I had been living in Paris for many years before I decided to attend the ANZAC day ceremonies in France at 3 o'clock on a cold winter's morning in a little town called Villers-Bretonneux ( population 4,210). As I had never encountered many Australians living in France I thought I should go and visit the dead ones. The truth of the matter is that there are more Australians under the ground in France than there are above the ground.

I learned that 5,000 young Australians soldiers between 18 and 30 years old, all volunteers, had been literally mowed-down in a few hours during a single battle that the Germans won during the first world war. I couldn’t believe it. From what I can gather, it was due to the pigheaded stupidity of the commanding officers whom I can only qualify as criminals and murderers.

On reflection, the only equivalence I could think of was the Japanese kamikaze pilots during the second world war. But it seems that a number of historians question to what extent the young Japanese “student pilot” kamikazes can truly be considered “volunteers” due to the recruitment methods employed by the senior officers who were desperately fighting a losing battle at the time.

I thought they were crazy, but I suddenly realized that we Australians had done the same thing 25 years earlier and on a much larger scale – and nobody, it seems, has ever questioned the fact that they were truly volunteers, true kamikazes.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You conjectured (on page 7 of this thread) :

« I am yet to see Australians charging the Bastille … When action is called for, words and drawings are useless. »
.

The Bastille was demolished during the French Revolution in 1789, a year after the first fleet of convict-slaves arrived in Botany Bay. There were no “Australians” at the time, just those 759 convicts that had been deported from the UK as “white slaves” to develop the new British colony called New South Wales (which included New Zealand).

Though slavery was progressively abolished throughout the British Empire with effect from 1 August 1834, white convict-slaves continued to be deported to the colony of New South Wales until 1868, eighty years after the arrival of the first fleet.

We didn’t become fair dinkum Australians until 26 January 1949 when the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 came into effect creating the new status of Australian citizen. Prior to that date we were all British subjects. That’s a long time to wait for a stubby.

I first arrived in Europe in 1965 and landed at Portsmouth in southern England on the “Fair-sky”, an ocean liner. When I walked up to the customs desk with my passport they asked me a number of questions. Noticing that I had an Australian passport, they asked “Do you have a police record?” Surprised, I answered: “No, I didn’t know I needed one!” They nodded compassionately, stamped my passport and let me through.

The “words and drawings” of Charlie Hebdo go through a process of careful scrutiny by the members of the editorial staff, including a qualified in-house lawyer. The magazine is often considered “offensive” by people who never read it. The cartoonists affirm that they are irreverent, never nasty. They are often coarse and vulgar, defiant and impertinent. They attack and ridicule only those who are in a position of superiority and authority, capable of defending themselves. Charlie Hebdo is satirical. It prides itself on its secularism.

Time will tell if “the pen is mightier than the sword”.

.