1. Anger

2. Hopelessness

3. Frustration

Just glad there were no violent reprisals overnight and that the non-islamic world have reated in a sane and united manner. Revenge would be wrong and two wrongs most certainly do not make a right.

Yes,I agree except that we don't know yet what the reaction will be.This cartoon I saw yesterday seemed to make a good point

"provoking fanatics repeatedly with cartoons designed to offend"

I'm afraid I don't agree with your description of the work of the late cartoonists and of their drawings. These are not designed to offend, they are designed to comment on the society, they are designed to make us think a little deeper, they are designed to make us laugh and see the world in a slightly different way.

I think what has offended the French mostly is that these people were the only ones to stand up against the self censorship the other media inflict to themselves in the name of the politically correct, the only ones to have the guts to say "this is wrong". They are gone and I'm afraid they will be difficult to replace. There are few journalists in the mainstream media who feel free enough to say what they said. There are few countries in the world where these things can be said outloud and if we let them kill this freedom, then we are sure to go to an era where freedoms will be reduced little by little, out of fear of reprisals. 

We are all Charlie and I hope many will rise to keep writing and drawing with the same spirit they have for half a century (for some of them).

Thank you for those comments Aurelie.

i must confess,I do not know much of the work and have only heard of cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed( which seems to me a bit pointless) but what you have said has prompted me to look at other stuff now.Thank you

https://www.google.ch/search?q=unes+de+charlie+hebdo&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=EGeuVM-ENM6tPN6jgPAE&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1200&bih=668

Please check out this link, it's a google search of some of the front pages of the journal. It shows (powerfully even if you don't understand a word of French) that no one was ever spared by their caustic humour. You can agree or not but it shows that their focus was not specifically on one religion or one group of people. They were commenting the news and giving their own view of our society.

Also I would like to rectify. If you look closer, you will see that the cartoons do not mock the prophet, only the fanatics using the prophet as their excuse to spread fear and terror.

It is not pointless to mock any prophet, religion or politician. They are drawings. It's what's called a free society. Grow a shield, but it seems that religion seems to continuosly claim they owe the truth and the right of being insulted. We have freedoms, they have been hard fought for. Any piece of freedome we give up will never come back untill the light goes out. Now is not a time for politcal correctness. We should brotherly embrace our freedoms, stand up for it united. If you can't see the difference and want to resort to violence, pick up your stuff and LEAVE! 

Hey.Don't attack me here. I am no defender of religion - I am acut ally a constant critic of monotheistic religions and people who base their lives on " belief". I would happily draw cartoons to mock any religion  - I wonder( and I am not sure) if provoking sick people is actually going to have any useful outcome or change anything.

just asking

I don't want to get into a fight - blimey! There has been far too much aggression this last 24 hours.

I didn't read Martin's post as an attack on you there buzzcocks, I think his "you" is a general "you" for the people who are intolerant.

But I'll let him respond to you.

The answer is very easy - yes we should. We need to provoke them. Why shouldn't we. If we give in to these idiots we can just as well stop. They want to enforce something on us, and we should react in a non violent way. That is the only way. And I wasn't attacking you :-) 

I wasn't attacking you Buzzcocks - sorry if I gave the impression. But more and more people from a certain group are acting as they are the victims now. THEY ARE NOT. The families of the killed people - like it or not - in the name of Islam - are the victims. The question should be "how are we going to make sure we ALL (and I mean all - everybody with any religion of any race or background) keep these freedoms. How do we prevent that these extremists win? We shouldn't stop mocking. 

You could easily spot any Religion of Peace. Its extremist members would be extremely peaceful.

Ok

All discussion about this is important,whatever ideas we wish to put forward and explore.

We, along with the rest of our beautiful adopted country, France, are grieving for the senseless act of barbarism and terrorism which was perpetrated on innocent people, including the latest shooting of a policewoman in Paris today.

I cannot imagine that any religion would condone these wanton acts of violence - are they not a thinly veiled excuse for going on a violent rampage? Inner cities are vulnerable, not only Paris but all over Europe and America. Extremism is abhorrent in any society.

There are three questions : 

- was Charlie Hebdo always fun and relevant ? I am not sure, and sometimes I think they were beyond the limits, unappropriately hurting some people's feelings. 

- does such a newspaper have a place in a democracy : definately yes. If you do not like it, you do not buy it. 

As Voltaire said : "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

- is the massacre a tragedy ? I cannot find the words to express how much it is ! It is a tragedy for the people killed, for their family, for democracy, for all people wishing to live together in peace - including the vast majority of muslim people, betrayed by such fanatics. 

It is just sad. 

Hopefully, these drawers taught us to laugh out of the worse, and move forward. 

Even though they turned to the other side of the pencil, from drawing the tragedy to being of it. I miss how they would have drawn this...

"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidty. "Respect of Religion" has become a code phrase meaning "fear of religion". Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and , yes, our fearless disrespect."

Salman Rushdie

Politics and Religion is the Crutch of all EVIL.

Charlie Hebdo was very very good at criticism, satire, insulting, discrespectful, but they did this to provoke people to think outside of the normal media. They were self critical, and criticized/insulted/discrespected there own institutions in France. They were relentless on the French and European politics, which was some of the best.

Now Politics, religion, and the Rich 'Man'/Businesses all deserve the criticism. They are screwing us all and at the cost of all. If no 'Charlie' then we are muppets of CNN style journalism. I hate the sensationialized news and vomited/regergicated over and over news. 

We need to be self critical, keep protecting the freedom of speach. If not, then we will give up a most fundamental freedom.

If not, then they decide what you read, oh that was Nazi, Stallen, China? I should not be worried about what I read or write, if it offends, too bad, because I belielve that even if you dont agree, too bad.

Finally, 90% of all Charlie Hebdo journal wrote about was about politics, and maybe 10% about any and all religions. They were ir-reverent but they did make you think or discuss, but that is 'FREEDOM of SPEACH', not controled by some King in KSA/Peoples party guidelines or other type of censorship.

I never understood, why people or religions deserve respect. They do deserve tolerance, as long as they don't infringe on other peoples rights.

Respect has to be earned and there are no religions and very few people I truely respect.

I think this was a tragedy for sure, but again, why go through the complication of killing cartoonists?  I have to admit I have never seen Charlie Hebdo's work, but it seems a little ridiculous to think that terrorists would take that much risk and spend resources against a group of journalists that express their opinions, not only about islam, but about pretty much anything else, through cartoons.

What was the purpose of this?

- Distabilize a society that already has a tough time dealing with muslim immigrants?

- Convince a society or sell them the idea that terror is at their doorstep and the government needs to do something about it?

- Impose fear for expressing one's opinions, therefore allowing a group (terrorists or not) to operate with little resistance

- Control through fear to minimize protests (lets remember we are going through a tough financial crisis with high unemployment after all)

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that not everything we are told by the media is necessarily accurate or true.  We must take a good look at what's happening and see if it makes any sense, or what oould be behind it.  Religion has always been the excuse for many attrocities, and its easy to put the blame on terrorists.  I'm not saying that islamic extremists didn't commit this murder... maybe they did, but everyone was quick to assume that it was related to this, and everyone jumped into the bandwagon, and then next thing we know, we have the world media brainwashing everyone by repeating the same thing over and over without going deep into the details or questioning actions or evidence.  

"There are few countries in the world where these things can be said outloud and if we let them kill this freedom, then we are sure to go to an era where freedoms will be reduced little by little, out of fear of reprisals. "

Its funny to read this, as I thought we where already living in this era for the last 14 years.  Calling this event the French 9/11 is a serious statement.  We just have to see how much has changed in the US since that event, and how much have people's rights and privacy been affected, not to mention what has happened around the world since then.

Ah, it didn't take long, till the first conspiracy theorist comes along. Clueless as they always are, Jean-Jacques B is in the tradition of those denying reality and living in their self chosen La La Land.

Why kill cartoonists? Because this has a long tradition. Even Mo has had people murdered for making fun of him. But according to JJB, this is something new and special. Just shows how far from reality some people are.

The rest of his post is similar in "style" and follows the same route as all the conspiracy nuts. Even if JJB got his throat slit by some Muslim terrorist, he would still believe that it was a Mossad agent doing a false flag attack.

Arguing with people like him is like a broken pencil, pointless. They are impervious to facts and I wonder, who really employs these people.

Well, there's a fine line between reality and conspiracy and it's all based on evidence.  I was trying to be neutral since I have not heard any evidence to support either side.  I just like to question things like why would a terrorist leave his id in the car for example?  Wouldn't you think that's a bit clumsy from someone who just killed a bunch of people? Common folks, just make YOUR OWN judgements and don't let anyone else tell you their version of the truth.

Allan is the type of person we should really fear I think.  He seems to be the type of guy that doesn't question authority, and takes for granted everything he's told, and obeys and does without question.  History has proven this to be a real problem in our society.  But I'm sure he must be a great corporate drone.

I don't think we should be like Allan.  We should be able to make our own opinions and express them without reprisal, and we should also respect other people's views.  The "if you are not with us, you are against us" attitude is just going to keep us from making progress in our lives.   

Scepticism is always useful in these situations,I think.

And,speaking of bandwagon jumping,when you get people like London's right wing and self publicising mayor,a figure of the Establishment if ever there was one, writing " Je Suis Charlie",it is very tempting to feel that it might be more useful to quote Monty Python:

" I am Brian.......and so is my wife"

(The Life of Brian")

Jean-Jacques, thank you for exhorting people to make their own judgement and opinion but please don't let the facts confuse you either.

"its easy to put the blame on terrorists"

First let's talk about a quite neutral definition of terrorism: Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments.

This to me sounds quite corresponding to what we saw and heard. I agree with you that the only real source of information we have is the streamlined media and they can be biased / subjective / misleading - so far, I agree but what is your own source of information? Will you go and start making your own research on all subject matters that could be potentially controversial?

"I'm not saying that islamic extremists didn't commit this murder... maybe they did, but everyone was quick to assume that it was related to this, and everyone jumped into the bandwagon, and then next thing we know, we have the world media brainwashing everyone by repeating the same thing over and over without going deep into the details or questioning actions or evidence. "

No doubt this attack was the work of islamic fanatics, unless they wanted to "avenge the prophet" for the fun of it. No doubt they have had some clumsiness. I don't think you need to be highly intelligent to shoot people. I have found the media on the contrary (at least the French ones, didn't bother to check what CNN or the BBC were saying, sorry) to be very cautious, very respectful of the events rolling and trying to keep it all factual and not to give in to a bunch of hypothesis.

Your post is not based on evidence, your reflection is based on assumptions, why kill cartoonists (really? are you really asking this question?) you are implying things that don't even make sense - why leave behind an ID? well, maybe because this was clumsy, but also maybe because with their profile, in Paris today, they could be subject to an ID control at any given time and not having their ID with them would have been a problem? My guess is as good as yours but I confront the facts, not my own assumption that there is something fishy in there...

Do you remember the DSK scandal? The guy is highly intelligent, one of the most brillant of his generation, got caught on a rape, leaving all the evidence possible, couldn't be more stupid than that. Was there a conspiracy against him?

Dont let the facts confuse you into thinking that the world is real Jean Jacques, you are missing on a whole lot of reality there.

It's a tragedy, most of all for the familes of whose who lost their lives. The video of the cop getting shot in the head, while he's there begging for his life, is just crazy. Makes me scared to realise - once again - how some people view the world. 

Prof. Walter Kotschnig told his students, to keep their minds open “but not so open that your brains fall out.” Jean-Jacques has clearly not followed this advice. 

He thinks, that there is a lot of skill and intelligence required, to shoot some people with an AK. Nope, people have been killing people for aeons. Even a shark can kill withoug the necessity of huge brains.

Then he goes on babbling about "their version of truth". There are not different versions of truths. Either you know the truth, or you are wrong.

He claims "we should also respect other people's views." This of course is utter bullshit. If we did this, we would have to respect the opinions of Germans during WWII that murdering Jews is OK or that Muslims are right, when they murder journalists. He believes in his deluded mind, that we somehow could embrace these Muslim terrorists if we didn't have a confronational attitude. I would like him to try. Travel to IS controlled territory and see if your approach works. We would see your throat being slit on TV not much later...

@alan and jjb: it's hard to believe how you 2 manage to turn this thread that talks about such a big global event, into such personal attacks on each other. ok, you've made your points. please spare the rest of us from your personal insults. 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks

Please check out the above cartoon - it explains what I have been trying,so clumsily and ineptly,to ask about the terrible events of this week.I tried to print the cartoon for you but sadly that was inept too!

" a vapid way to use the pen"- I think that is an interesting way of looking at this.

I am offended by a lot of stuff. I am offended by Islam, teaching that nonbelievers should be killed. I am offended by Judaism, a racist religion condoning the slaughter of innocents to get more Lebensraum. I am offended by Christianity, for putting the fear of hell in children, I am offended by racists, who think they can and should group humans according to the colour of their skin, I am offended by deniers of scientific achievements, who claim that homeopathy works and vaccines are evil, I am offended by communists, who want to limit the freedom of the people they rule, I am offended by capitalist, who see humans as a commodity and I am offended by those, who only protect freedom of speech, in those cases where it does not need any protection.

Since when do we allow or tolerate the killings of ohters, just because the murderers claim there were offended? Do you, buzzcock, also condone honor killing? Because if you were consistent, you would have to say it is ok, for a man to kill "his" wife, just because she slept with an other man and therefor offended her murderous husband.

Sorry,I didn't notice that I said I condoned violence ? I must have made a mistake somewhere?I think you misread me.

Nah, you are just telling a rape victim, she should have not dressed as provocatively then she would have been OK. Or rather that she has no right to dress as she pleases.

Spirituality yes.. organised spirituality no as it is =directed religion  + iliteracy + luck of democratic principles... Crazyness....

Summer time .... Geneva... covered women... swimming completely dressed... can you find an adjetive for this?

If one thing rings positive it's that there has been a nearly global "Je suis Charlie" reaction, but why is Geneva not having a march for solidarity? 

They had it in the afternoon....

http://www.24heures.ch/suisse/environ-2000-personnes-marche-solidarite-geneve/story/31684355

I agree with your observations Dave, thanks for articulating them.  

People in my view are getting blinded other issues at hand and they are not in my view religion or freedom of speech that is a smoke screen at a number of levels.  Charlie Hebdo as you rightly point out was very critical of its own country particularly politics and very moderate on religion.  So I can see that such free press can be a threat to governmental status quo and not conducive to appeasing the increasing social unrest in the country.  What I find paradoxical in this "je suis charlie" movement is that the Hebdo was in financial difficult and needed an additional 5,000 readers on its existing 45k audience.  So for a country that values democracy as it seems to portray and freedom of speech they were not very supportive of a newspaper that sought exactly that.  Just like the rest of the developed countries many settled for being dumbed down and manipulated by the main stream propaganda press, which that take as being "gospel".  It’s curious also that these persons were already well known to the police and secret services and were in fact on surveillance for a period of time.   All is not what it seems! 

Consider the different angles being milked by the press regarding this sad event.  I can conceive that there were a number of interested parties in seeing CH fail.  Furthermore, the conduct of the French government overseas has not been that different than the US or the UK and other countries looking to rival for natural resources, economic interests and military spending.  Charlie Hebdo was a soft target that would bring a maximum of attention to what France as a country is doing overseas to which many French people (as would be expected of most) turn a blind eye to or are ignorant of.  Ignorance however is not a defense.  What I hope all the same is that the CH tragedy will at the very least get the French to foster a sense of "patrie" and collectivism so that the "peuple" take back some of the balance of power in terms of the terrible economic and social state of the country.  

Consider a nation on the edge socially and economically displeased at the way their country is run by their so called leaders (the priviledge and power hungary few).  They feel pain and loneliness (which most people do when they have problems they cannot truely discuss and so feel isolation) and then you have an event which serves as a catalyst to unite with others.  CH while tragic march is in my view is also a proxy to express how fed up the french are of where they are at and how they are treated generally.  It's a way of shedding/purging other anger that has building up.  That is fine so long as this deeper truth also emergers as I see it.  

Furthermore, to be cautious that the already increasing police state (a trend in developed countries) does not yet tighten its noose by using this event divisively to impose less freedom.  As in the US where increasingly people give up their freedom for their security - so the question begs what is that freedom.  So free speech and religion are not the main issues at hand they are far more profound and I only hope this event will allow people to open their minds and increase their awareness of the wider issues, will use this to foster new social collaborations, as opposed to old paradigm individualist behaviors.  With all tragedy comes opportunity, and unfortunately it is often what is necessary to shake, or move people into responding once they get over the reactionary stages - assuming they can move beyond that and not remain in place of anger or contraction, but expansion. 

I made my own cartoon... My hommage to CH...

I am not sure I agree with everything that Maurice H says,but I think the ideas he puts before us are very thought provoking.In the strange world we live in......who knows?

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ben-hayes/no-we’re-not-all-charlie-hebdo-nor-should-we-be

Little by little,and with some relief,I am starting to discover that there is NOT the consensus on this issue that mainstream media would have us believe.

Here's to the freedom to detach from the mass emotion and to be open to other interpretations

This is shock and disbelief. Never, ever, in any circumstances can a crime be excused, justified or even explained. But I don’t hear enough about the possible consequences of provocation. Although that is no excuse either, provocation can lead to escalation, and nobody knows where escalation can lead to. Shouldn’t we be a lot more active, efficient and relentless in defending our freedoms and even our lives…? That is, with due respect for other people’s freedom and beliefs. That goes without saying.

It is a tragedy, how rape apologists like Elisabeth blame the victims of a crime (yes, what you are doing is akin to what rape apologists do, when they excuse rape because of the behaviour of the victim). Then how many conspiracy theorists like buzzcocks and Maurice are here.

I'm more and more watching this with disbelieve. Why should someone pay the ultimate price for drawing a bloody cartoon (because that's what it is) about your (imaginary) friend. The blood stains even haven't dried up - but there are standing up a whole lot of new "victims" who are dancing over the luke warm corpses. DIGUSTING. A discussion should have been there in the first place... But that's a bit too late now....

The more I see the news, the more strange it all seems to me.  The media exposure that has been given to this event, and the world polititians parading on the square.  Why are we giving so much free publicity to the terrorists?  Well I don't know, but there's something else going on, and it seems to me that all this media exposure is meant to validate future actions that we still haven't been made aware of.  But time will tell.  It will be an interesting year I guess.

You apparently hit your keyboard without properly reading my posting. Why so defensive…? We’re talking about different things here and I would be happy to see more respect and less victims. That’s all. 

Maybe.

I had also noticed the vast amount of media coverage but had put it down to the fact that this time it was a media organization (ie one of their own) that was the target. Not a convoluted conspiracy theory.

Thanks Kathy - did you steal my keyboard!  I was just about to say exactly the same thing in relation to Jean Jaques's "conspiracy theory" train of thought. 

It's not "free publicity" for a bunch of terrorists as JJ implies but "the media" coming out in full force to show solidary for, as you say, one of their own and also because it's been such a brutal attack on our right to freedom of speech, which magzines such as Charlie Hedbo (and Private Eye in the UK) historially "metaphorically" and now "literally", fight, and will continue to fight that right, to the death.

And I'd really REALLY like to see the word "provocation" dropped from any future posts, even if the original poster DID start that line of thought......

Please.

I don't think anyone on here is about to change their point of view - although I must say that this discussion has certainly allowed me to see ,and appreciate,things from different standpoints.It has really got me thinking even more.

However,I would say that the level of aggression displayed here has been rather a disappointment.If we really do claim to defend free speech then we should also be ready to listen to opinions that challenge our own,without using the mudslinging technique.Opinions that we may not agree with still deserve to be heard and their authors not trashed or insulted.

maybe we should all take a trip to our local cafe philo for a bit of practice in how to discuss in a reasonable manner,in a spirit of openness and respect?

peace and luurrrve,comrades( or is that too provocative? :-)

I will word this carefully as we do not have freedom of speech (unless it is to toe the line) and certainly not privacy.

i agree that the violence, punishment revenge or whatever meted out was unjustified but these are not terrorists; these are not muslims, they are criminals, psychpaths or something similar.  by labelling them as islamist terrorists, they believe that their sacrifice will ensure their presence in heaven.  We encourage them by accepting their belief by calling them islamist terrorists.

Freedom of speech should also have its limits if it is seen to be provocative.  Publishing cartoons which were known to be offensive to muslims was provocative.  In the thirties the Third Reich published anti Jewish cartoons which was part of the beginning of the attempted destruction of the Jewish people.  But this was free speech - are we to condone this?

Charlie Hebdo's cartoons indirectly lead to the demonisation of Islam and all those associated with it because of our reaction to the brutal acts of a group of psychopaths who were waiting for an excuse.  We blame Islam and mosques are having to be protected by the police in our so-called free society.

On the otjher side I have to admit that the moslem community should be making more effort to excommunicate such criminals even pothumously if their religion allows this.  The non moslem community should also cease all forms of discrimination if we want to live in a free (for everybody) society.   

very clear post Paul but you can't possibly compare charlie hebdo with nazi Germany. That is seriously comparing apples with pears. The Jews where ridiculed ALONE by a (ruling) political party. And they where singled out And discriminated besides the cartoons and movies of those daYs. CH made cartoons about anything and everybody, not just Islam. And you are totally wrong in naming the purputrators. They where Moslim terrorists. That what they where. Does that make any other peace loving moslim a terrorist - Ofcourse NOT. But in order to stop / prevent this kind of rubbish again we first have to name the problem - and that's not CH. It's radical imams / preachers and other social issue. what's next Paul? People are insulted by othera drinking beers, by miniskirts etc etc. Shall we stop that as well. And in sorry buzz clocks but what where you expecting when you posted this. Ofcourse it will be a fierce discussion but it seems most here are willing to give up a lot hard fought rights. Anything you give away now will be very hard to get back. 

Martin - in principal I agree with you but:

My point in referring to the Third Reich was to show that there mist be some form of self censorship if 'free speech' could lead to violence.  The comparison was not good as as the anti semitic cartoons were probably state sponsored but if cartoons provoke violence which which results in a backlash agqinst innocent moslems, something should be done. 

With regard to the word terrorist, I suppose they are terrorists but if we name them as such it can be construed as a fighter for a cause, becoming a freedom fighter and, if they win, a respected politician.  It gives a form of legitimacy to their actions, in their eyes at least.  These are not terrorists they a psychopaths and if they were always referred to as such it might make one or two of them think again.  There parents were probably moslem but they should not be counted as such.   We have had psychpaths around before, Baader-Meinhof, the Red Brigades who caused as much terror but that was OK because they were Christian 

The problem will not go away because our leaders need an enemy.  People like us are controled because we are frightened of the invisible enemy.  In Orwells 1984 there were hate campaigns against the public enemy (have forgotten his name); the same was the case in that book's predecessor 'Us' written I think by Zaichenko; during most of my life time it was 'better dead than red' and people were afraid to visit the Soviet Union, then along came Osam bin Laden but unfortunately he was killed and 'moslem terrorist' has replaced him. 

We cannot escape this need to have an enemy.  Even the 'Economist' refers to the president of Turkey and his party as 'mildly islamist' every time his name is mentioned but never refers to the Pope as being fiercely catholic or other leaders being strongly Christian etc.  In our free world we are cleverly manipulated and have reverted to the mentality of the crusaders where the great evil is Islam: this will stay for some time

The moral here?  We are educated to hate something or someone: I do not see much peace or love in the world   

Thanks Paul, I agree. Innocent people (weather it being the cartoonists or muslems) should be protected against the backlash.

I try to read through the lines of press reports (without going haywire on conspiracy) however I feel very strongly about keeping the victims the victims. Also the rights we have in the most of Europe should be defended. After centuries of battle against the Catholic churchs we finally have a kind of secular state (if fully possible) and that shouldn't change again. That would just be going back in time. 

In the Netherlands we have gone through this twice already - once the attack on Theo van Gogh, filmaker and criticiser of Islam, and we had the assasination of Pim Fortuyn, a right wing politician who was killed by a ultra left wing murderer. We somehow have still kept it all together however the debate has hardened. I believe that we should have the right of blasphamy. Wether it insults or not. That's a society, you grow a shield, engage in a discussion (like we do here - and what happens, we all grow towards eachother) or also draw a cartoon. Just pulling a racism card, the insulted card is too easy. It doesn't work like that.

The mayor of Rotterdam, a mulsim himself, said it quite clearly. " if you don't like our freedoms here, why don't you get the f*ck out of here". This is the kind of signal we need now. Unite together, defend our freedoms and have an open debate. But let's not mock the victims of these acts by saying "they had it coming". Alan said that quite clear before already. 

(the common enemy is Emanuel Goldstein with his brotherhood - love that book, still read it once a year). 

Martin. Glad to see we are more or less in agreement. 

Thanks - will have to read 1984 again.  Not sure if I have the right author for the precursor of 1984.  The title is 'We' but in cyrillic and it is well worth reading.  Maybe a Russian member pof glocals can advise the name of the author

In UK we had the situation with the IRA and certain members we deemed terrorists and are now respected (?) politicians.  This is why I do not like the term terrorist for a senesless murderer,  

Found the book. 

We (Russian: Мы) is a dystopian novel by Yevgeny Zamyatin completed in 1921.[1] The novel was first published in 1924 by E. P. Dutton in New York in an English translation

A must for fans of 1984

I have discussed this subject with many people ,particularly in the uk,some of whom are far better informed that I am .The most intelligent comment that I have heard are that this debate is not black and white.It is very complex.Even those who support the freedom of speech idea have reservations about the purpose that certain forms of it might serve.

some,like me,are beginning to feel that it is impossible to give one answer since so many aspects come into play.

The best things about those discussions is that they have ben calm and thoughtful - not shrill and aggressive and polarised,as on this forum.

i think the former have been more helpful in bringing about some modifications in my own ideas.

in any case,aggressive putting down of other people's opinions will never get anyone anywhere.

Let's have less aggression in future and more respect of other people's point of view( even if it DOES seem nutty!!)Isn't that all part of free speech?

peace,bros and ho's :-)

Buzzcocks, i'm seriously lost with you. 

Lets take out the defenition of a "forum" :

a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

Where does it state in the rules here that we can't get emotional about this - IMHO pretty important subject. So far the only thing you have contributed is some silly wooly comments which seriously add nothing to this otherwise debate. Allan comes with very strong arguments, but - yes they might be strong but are they wrong???????? I remember a strong discussion here about "keep her where she belongs" and about rapist vitims, and there certain member threw in quite some strong arguments becuase they felt strong about it, and that's how it should be. You are not a moderator here, and thank the flying spagetti monster, not the our moral compas.

You started a thread which could be as inflammable as a discussion on Israel, Feminism, Capitalism or religion. That's cool, but once it starts seriously off and becomes interesting I read these soft comments. Why? It's not all love and peace out there.

Most people I've seen here have tons of respect for others opionions, but why would we call it a forum if we can't challange it? (e.g. Allan challanging the conspiricy theorists here) - why is he wrong in challanging them with pretty strong arguments? Give an argument back. But no - all I see coming back is "why are you so agressive - why are you so direct" - If you have a strong case come back with good arguments, discuss. Like I did with Paul, that's cool, that's interesting. That's who we only are going to solve this mess we are in right now. Strong debates, discussions, listening to eachother. Not just putting everthing away and forgetting about it. There is nothing polarised here, at least, not what i've seen but ofcourse my English might be limited. If one can't stand the heat stay out of the bloody kitchen! 

These quotes cover it all I think: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” 
― Benjamin Franklin

“A concept is a brick. It can be used to build a courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown through the window.” 
― Giles Deleuze

“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” 
- James Boverd

Much could be done by poiticians to diffuse the situation.  At least in Paris both mosques and synagogues are being protected by the police but then if we look at the actions of some politicians we can maybe understand why the world is in such a mess.  Sarah Palin's advisors told her that the psychopaths took revenge on Charlie Brown cartoons.  After all why should she know what hebdo is short for

http://dailycurrant.com/2015/01/09/sarah-palin-why-do-muslims-hate-charlie-brown/

so those who watched Fox news probably agree with her

Have seen a comment that the Palin story is a hoax but still makes good reading

@paul: i hope you're joking. the "source" you quote for your post is a satirical publication that also has an article about romney pledging to get a tatoo of the US flag on his forehead, and an article about putin saying paris is now also part of russia

i don't usualy agree with martin, but now i do. if you want a discussion about a heated topic, then you'll get some heated discussions. stuff like "lets all be friends" sounds great, but is not a discussion

Thanks Mark. We don't need to agree. We can always agree to disagree and drink a pint (or a cup of tea) on that! The difference makes the other person so much more interesting! 

Well.....the " peace and love " comments were actually a joke.

But never mind.

Still,it is interesting  though that people are suddenly starting to be all matey and friendly to eachother - and less aggressive.

I have had " heated discussions" with many people on this issue,as I said above.It is a very emotive topic.

i am all up for robust argument.

i just noticed that some of the interactions seemed uneccessarily aggressive - robust and heated is not the same as aggressive( as anyone who listens to any serious debates on the radio/ TV will attest)

If we descend into mud slinging we arrive at the same level as the bullies we wish to stand up against.

A brilliant article, by

Ali A. Rizvi
 

Pakistani-Canadian writer, physician and musician

An Open Letter to Moderate Muslims

Let's start with what I'm not going to do.

I'm not going to accuse you of staying silent in the face of the horrific atrocities being committed around the world by your co-religionists. Most of you have loudly and unequivocally condemned groups like the Islamic State (ISIS), and gone out of your way to dissociate yourselves from them. You have helped successfully isolate ISIS and significantly damage its credibility.

I'm also not going to accuse you of being sympathetic to fundamentalists' causes like violent jihad or conversion by force. I know you condemn their primitive tactics like the rest of us, maybe even more so, considering the majority of victims of Islamic terrorists are moderate Muslims like yourselves. On this, I am with you.

But I do want to talk to you about your increasingly waning credibility -- a concern many of you have articulated as well.

You're feeling more misunderstood than ever, as Islamic fundamentalists hijack the image of Muslims, ostentatiously presenting themselves as the "voice of Islam." And worse, everyone seems to be buying it.

The frustration is evident. In response to comedian Bill Maher's recent segment ripping liberals for their silence on criticizing Islam, religious scholar Reza Aslan slammed him in a CNN interview. Visibly exasperated, he ultimately resorted to using words like "stupid" and "bigot" to make his points. (He apologized for this later.)

We'll get to Aslan's other arguments in a bit. But first, let's talk about something he said to his hosts that I know many of you relate to: that moderate Muslims are too often painted with the same brush as their fundamentalist counterparts. This is often true, and is largely unfair to moderates like yourselves.

But you can't simply blame this on the "ignorance" or "bigotry" of non-Muslims, or on media bias. Non-Muslims and the media are no more monolithic than the Muslim world you and I come from.

The problem is this: moderate Muslims like you also play a significant role in perpetuating this narrative -- even if you don't intend to.

To understand how, it's important to see how it looks from the other side.

***

Tell me if this sounds familiar:

Sometimes, this kind of exchange will lead to the questioner being labeled an "Islamophobe," or being accused of bigotry, as Aslan did with Maher and his CNN hosts. This is a very serious charge that is very effective at ending the conversation. No one wants to be called a bigot.

(1) A moderate Muslim states that ISIS is wrong, they aren't "true" Muslims, and Islam is a religion of peace.

(2) A questioner asks: what about verses in the Quran like 4:89, saying to "seize and kill" disbelievers? Or 8:12-13, saying God sent angels to "smite the necks and fingertips" of disbelievers, foreboding a "grievous penalty" for whoever opposes Allah and his Messenger? Or 5:33, which says those who "spread corruption" (a vague phrase widely believed to include blasphemy and apostasy) should be "killed or crucified"? Or 47:4, which also prescribes beheading for disbelievers encountered in jihad?

(3) The Muslim responds by defending these verses as Allah's word -- he insists that they have been quoted "out of context," have been misinterpreted, are meant as metaphor, or that they may even have been mistranslated.

(4) Despite being shown multiple translations, or told that some of these passages (like similar passages in other holy books) are questionable in any context, the Muslim insists on his/her defense of the Scripture.

But put yourself in the shoes of your non-Muslim audience. Is it really them linking Islam to terrorism? We're surrounded with images and videos of jihadists yelling "Allahu Akbar" and quoting passages from the Quran before beheading someone (usually a non-Muslim), setting off an explosion, or rallying others to battle. Who is really making this connection?

What would you do if this situation was reversed? What are non-Muslims supposed to think when even moderate Muslims like yourselves defend the very same words and book that these fundamentalists effortlessly quote as justification for killing them -- as perfect and infallible?

Like other moderates, Reza Aslan frequently bemoans those who read the Quran "literally." Interestingly enough, we sort of agree on this: the thought of the Quran being read "literally" -- or exactly as Allah wrote it -- unsettles me as much as it unsettles Reza.

This is telling, and Reza isn't alone. Many of you insist on alternative interpretations, some kind of metaphorical reading -- anything to avoid reading the holy book the way it's actually written. What message do you think this sends? To those on the outside, it implies there is something lacking in what you claim is God's perfect word. In a way, you're telling the listener to value your explanations of these words over the sacred words themselves. Obviously, this doesn't make a great case for divine authorship. Combined with the claims that the book is widely misunderstood, it makes the writer appear either inarticulate or incompetent. I know that's not the message you mean to send -- I've been where you are. But it is important to understand why it comes across that way to many non-Muslims.

If any kind of literature is to be interpreted "metaphorically," it has to at least represent the original idea. Metaphors are meant to illustrate and clarify ideas, not twist and obscure them. When the literal words speak of blatant violence but are claimed to really mean peace and unity, we're not in interpretation/metaphor zone anymore; we're heading into distortion/misrepresentation territory. If this disconnect was limited to one or two verses, I would consider your argument. If your interpretation were accepted by all of the world's Muslims, I would consider your argument. Unfortunately, neither of these is the case.

You may be shaking your head at this point. I know your explanations are very convincing to fellow believers. That's expected. When people don't want to abandon their faith or their conscience, they'll jump on anything they can find to reconcile the two.

But believe me, outside the echo chamber, all of this is very confusing. I've argued with Western liberals who admit they don't find these arguments convincing, but hold back their opinions for fear of being seen as Islamophobic, or in the interest of supporting moderates within the Muslim community who share their goals of fighting jihad and fundamentalism. Many of your liberal allies are sincere, but you'd be surprised how many won't tell you what they really think because of fear or political correctness. The only difference between them and Bill Maher is that Maher actually says it.

Unfortunately, this is what's eating away at your credibility. This is what makes otherwise rational moderate Muslims look remarkably inconsistent. Despite your best intentions, you also embolden anti-Muslim bigots -- albeit unknowingly -- by effectively narrowing the differences between yourselves and the fundamentalists. You condemn all kinds of terrible things being done in the name of your religion, but when the same things appear as verses in your book, you use all your faculties to defend them. This comes across as either denial or disingenuousness, both of which make an honest conversation impossible.

This presents an obvious dilemma. The belief that the Quran is the unquestionable word of God is fundamental to the Islamic faith, and held by the vast majority of Muslims worldwide, fundamentalist or progressive. Many of you believe that letting it go is as good as calling yourself non-Muslim. I get that. But does it have to be that way?

Having grown up as part of a Muslim family in several Muslim-majority countries, I've been hearing discussions about an Islamic reformation for as long as I can remember. Ultimately, I came to believe that the first step to any kind of substantive reformation is to seriously reconsider the concept of scriptural inerrancy.

And I'm not the only one. Maajid Nawaz, a committed Muslim, speaks openly about acknowledging problems in the Quran. Recently, in a brave article here right here on The Huffington Post, Imra Nazeer also asked Muslims to reconsider treating the Quran as infallible.

Is she right? At first glance, this may be a shocking thought. But it's possible, and it actually has precedent.

***

I grew up in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, before the Internet. We had an after-school tutor who taught us to read and recite the Quran in classical Arabic, the language in which it's written.

My family is among the majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims -- concentrated in countries like Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran -- that doesn't speak Arabic. Millions of us, however, can read the Quran in Arabic, even if we don't understand it.

In most Muslim households, the Quran is physically placed at the highest place possible. In our house, it was at the top of a tall bookshelf. It cannot be physically touched unless an act of ablution/purification (wudhu) is first performed. It cannot be recited or touched by menstruating women. It is read in its entirety during the Sunni taraweeh prayers in the holy month of Ramadan. In many Muslim communities, it is held over the heads of grooms and brides as a blessing when they get married. A child completing her first reading of the Quran is a momentous occasion -- parties are thrown, gifts are given.

(...)

When Lee Rigby's murderer cited Surah At-Tawbah to justify his actions, we could go online and see exactly what he was talking about. When ISIS claims divine sanction for its actions by citing verse 33 from Surah Al-Maaidah or verse 4 from Surah Muhammad, we can look it up for ourselves and connect the dots.

Needless to say, this is a pretty serious problem, one that you must address. When people see moderates insisting that Islam is peaceful while also defending these verses and claiming they're misunderstood, it appears inconsistent. When they read these passages and see fundamentalists carrying out exactly what they say, it appears consistent. That's scary. You should try to understand it. Loudly shouting "Racist!" over the voices of critics, as Ben Affleck did over Maher and Sam Harris last week, isn't going to make it go away.

(Also, if you think criticizing Islam is racist, you're saying that all of Islam is one particular race. There's a word for that.)

Yes, it's wrong and unfair for anyone to judge a religion by the actions of its followers, be they progressive Muslims or al Qaeda. But it is appropriate and intellectually honest to judge it by the contents of its canonical texts -- texts that are now accessible online to anyone and everyone at the tap of a finger.

Today, you need to do better when you address the legitimate questions people have about your beliefs and your holy book. Brushing off everything that is false or disturbing as "metaphor" or "misinterpretation" just isn't going to cut it. Neither is dismissing the questioner as a bigot.

How, then, to respond?

***

For starters, it might help to read not only the Quran, but the other Abrahamic texts. When you do, you'll see that the Old Testament has just as much violence, if not more, than the Quran. Stoning blasphemers, stoning fornicators, killing homosexuals -- it's all in there. When you get about ten verses deep into Deuteronomy 20, you may even swear you're reading a rulebook for ISIS.

You may find yourself asking, how is this possible? The book of the Jews is not much different from my book. How, then, are the majority of them secular? How is it that most don't take too seriously the words of the Torah/Old Testament -- originally believed to be the actual word of God revealed to Moses much like the Quran to Muhammad -- yet still retain strong Jewish identities? Can this happen with Islam and Muslims?

Clearly from the above, the answer is a tried-and-tested yes. And it must start by dissociating Islamic identity from Muslim identity -- by coming together on a sense of community, not ideology.

Finding consensus on ideology is impossible. The sectarian violence that continues to plague the Muslim world, and has killed more Muslims than any foreign army, is blatant evidence for this. But coming together on a sense of community is what moves any society forward. Look at other Abrahamic religions that underwent reformations. You know well that Judaism and Christianity had their own violence-ridden dark ages; you mention it every chance you get nowadays, and you're right. But how did they get past that?

Well, as much as the Pope opposes birth control, abortion and premarital sex, most Catholics today are openly pro-choice, practice birth control, and fornicate to their hearts' content. Most Jews are secular, and many even identify as atheists or agnostics while retaining the Jewish label. The dissidents and the heretics in these communities may get some flak here and there, but they aren't getting killed for dissenting.

This is in stark contrast to the Muslim world where, according to a worldwide 2013 Pew Research Study, a majority of people in large Muslim-majority countries like Egypt and Pakistan believe that those who leave the faith must die. They constantly obsess over who is a "real" Muslim and who is not. They are quicker to defend their faith from cartoonists and filmmakers than they are to condemn those committing atrocities in its name. (Note: To their credit, the almost universal, unapologetic opposition against ISIS from Muslims is a welcome development.)

***

The word "moderate" has lost its credibility. Fareed Zakaria has referred to Middle Eastern moderates as a "fantasy." Even apologists like Nathan Lean are pointing out that the use of this word isn't helping anyone.

Islam needs reformers, not moderates. And words like "reform" just don't go very well with words like "infallibility."

The purpose of reform is to change things, fix the system, and move it in a new direction. And to fix something, you have to acknowledge that it's broken -- not that it looks broken, or is being falsely portrayed as broken by the wrong people -- but that it's broken. That is your first step to reformation.

If this sounds too radical, think back to the Prophet Muhammad himself, who was chased out of Mecca for being a radical dissident fighting the Quraysh. Think of why Jesus Christ was crucified. These men didn't capitulate or shy away from challenging even the most sacred foundations of the status quo.

These men certainly weren't "moderates." They were radicals. Rebels. Reformers. That's how change happens. All revolutions start out as rebellions. Islam itself started this way. Openly challenging problematic ideas isn't bigotry, and it isn't blasphemy. If anything, it's Sunnah.

Get out there, and take it back.

Thank you for posting that - a really interesting read that pulls together many points I have heard circulating in recent times Via various media.

As always,information  is far more useful than emotion - and gets us further in forming/ changing our opinions.

The boy said it right

Just to change the direction of this thread: the Moscow patriarch said this week that it is wrong to make a mockery of any religion. 

We have to be careful when we talk about freedom of speech (which only exists if we toe the line). Violence is an overreaction and inadmissible but if we want a multicultural society should we be posting images that are known to be blasphemous and are therefore offensive and have been known to cause violence in the past?  More people have been killed in the riots which have followed than died in Paris and any semi-intelligent person could have foreseen this.

Still the magazine did well out of it.  It was in financial difficulties but with its massive print runs it should be able to continue offending for some time, even if most of the money was given to the victims families (do not know if this was the case)

Despite what is written above I found the life of Brian immensely funny but it did not cause violence and deaths

Even very religious people ( like me at that time) found that film funny.But,then again,it didn't really seek to offend but was more about looking at how people could be manipulated and how something that began as sincere could be distorted by those with another agenda.

I think it had a sincere message that,ultimately,was sympathetic to what some people saw as the true teachings of Jesus,that is,the original ideas he put forward.

well,that was my reading anyway

Ps - I have no religious beliefs AT ALL now and I reject all organised religions very strongly

I also reject all organised religions and agree totally with post 68.  But at the same time I think less imaginative people (and there are still some who believe the bible literally) would have been offended so I have to admit hypocrisy in that I am against Charlie Hebdo and for the life of Brian.  partly because I did not find the Charlie Hebdo cartoons funny.

Paul: I don't understand which point you're trying to make. Lets assume the newspaper did offend lots of people from all religions. Lets assume the newspaper was saved from closing by its new found popularity following the attacks. So what? What is the point you're making? That if you're writing satire that offends people, don't complain if they kill you? 

Nir I am almost saying that.

This is not a question of free speech - it is a question of maturity and understanding the world today.   There is no doubt it is an atrocity but should we be so surprised?

If we insist this is free speech then it has to be to be controlled.  Another thread refers to the concentration camps : I already mentioned above that anti jewish cartoons formed part of the national socialist propoganda in the early thirties.  should it have been banned / controlled - yes in my opinion because it fometed unrest and eventually much worse.

Similarly there should be control on 'free speech' which causes unrest, violence, tolerance with the intention of marginalising people.  In National Socialist Germany it was probably the party which produced the cartoons; today it might be individuals but the aim is the same.

I stop here because my opinions differ from the accepted standard and in this world of 'free speech' anything that deviates from the norm is not acceptable 

The point is actually that, although there is no way whatsoever that a crime can be considered acceptable, anything that can lead to such crime deserves careful consideration, to say the least. Once the deed is done, the only thing left is regrets. The loved ones of the victims will probably not contradict me. Maybe we should also remember that a dead soldier is a useless soldier. 

Elisabeth - that summarises quite nicely what I was thinking but such thinking is unacceptable : it does not follow the accepted norms

Paul: I understand the point Elisabeth made, tho I admit I didn't understand it from your post.

BTW: you keep referring to your view "not being accepted" by the world, and alluding to some threat that might happen to you if you keep voicing your viewed. What are you talking about? Your view, if Elisabeth summarized it right, is shared by many people is quite mainstream. 

Go on!! Get in a fight!!

Elisabeth:

inthibk there are 2 separate points here.

The first is that there's a fine line between free speech and hate speech. I agree. Although I don't think C-hebdo crossed that line.

The second, which I think you're focusing on, is that if an action could lead to some crazy guy commiting a crime, that action should be "very carefully" considered.  I disagree. The criteria for considering an action shouldnt be the potential reaction of a crazy guy to it. if that's the criteria you're suggesting then it has a simple name: fear. The criteria should be whether your action is right or wrong, depending on your own principles and truths, on the laws, and on your internal campus.

Nir you have hit the exact problem

My point and possibly Elisabeth's is that it is wrong to incite hate.  In fact it might even be against the law.  But because it is Islam and all moslems have been painted as potential terrorists, it is acceptable to mock the religion

We live in the land of free speech - we have the right to mock whomever we want.

But if the downtrodden react in a way which is unacceptable to us, we also have the right to be indignant and hate moslims even more.  OK if that is the world we want to live - fine.  But, please, please, do not feign surprise that these attacks happened in France andmore muted in Nigeria, Turkey and other countries.

The whole thing serves a useful purpose in creating a common enemy for us - '1984' is on its way

I agree 100% that it's wrong to incite hate. But the definition of "inciting hate" is subjective, many times. Let's take C-Hebdo as an example. For you, they incited hate. For me, they didn't; they featured satire on all religions (incl my own), and used it to point at what they thought were wrong points. 

I still diagree 100% on your other point, that voicing a pro-muslim opinion will get you in some kind of trouble. I think most people, incl me, would agree with you that acts done by extemesits (muslim or jewish or christian or alien) can't reflect on everyone following that religion. 

so we shouldn't be surprised that a man decides to kill 12 people because of a caricature? you really think we should expect that as a normal reaction to a caricature? 

just like anywhere else, there are those who express a real view and get into the mix, and those like herman who sit on the side lines and give advice to others 

Nir - maybe I should not worry about voicing an opinion which differs from the norm. I also accept that CH satirise globally.  But restraint in today's world is in my opinion essential.  It is not a question of fear of reprisals: it is a question of knowing that peoples' lives are being put in danger.  Whether it was 12 people or one person, for me and I am sure for the families of those killed, restraint would have been preferable.

Blasphemy used to be punished by death 400 years ago; people are being killed in the name of religion today; in the last century there have been wars where God supported both sides - so we have not really advanced.  We preach tolerance but do not practice it and hide behind the curtain of 'free speech'.

I am not even trying to change attitudes; just describing humanity as I see it.    

Finally, how does it work ?

First, and this is my key prerequisite : I am a good guy (and clever, and open-minded, bla bla).

From there, either I am religious, or not.

if religious, I have been given the truth by God or its representatives. Hence other religions are either wrong, or at least less true.

if I am not religious, then all religions are wrong.

if I start to communicate with others, I use this material of information to build an even more consistent cultural pattern of my own. I become nicer, more clever, more open-minded. Others are definately still wrong, if not more wrong, but at least I know more and more why.

Eventually I just deny other ways of thinking / believing, or I insult, or worse.

This is called ignorance.

The comic of this tragedy is that I do not even realize how ignorant I am.

- do you ?

So perhaps, along with free speech, we could value free listening. Or free curiosity. Free sharing of our pieces of truth. 

Or free sex toys, I guess.

I am surprised everyone is talking of religion when it is all about politics. When the same Charlie Hebdo qualifies a cartoonist racist and antisemitic because his drawing suggest Sarkozy son's possible change of religion then why not just qualifying the rest of its staff racist too?

On the other hand, most of the wars were in the name of a religion (christian, islam, or establishing monotheism, or let's say Trojan war) but in reality they were just for the power and land/natural resources... whether it was justified the mockery or not the real reason of all this hustle and bustle either in France or in other parts of the Earth such as Middle East is all about the politics disguised with the words establishing democracy, freedom of speech and eradicating fundamentalism in religion.

You should not worry at all, why should you! Most people here respect eachother (though we can get passionate). 

I only wonder why we should apply restraint. Why can people burn other flags, say certain countries should be eradicated, kill anyone else who doesn't do what we want, but are the same people pulling the "i'm insulted card" all the time. One only has to even look at the political forum of this soapbox to see what I mean. 

People claim being insulted all the time, and they could well be. But what about the other side? Why are suddenly people drinking a beer in a TV show a cause of being insulted. Why is a mini skirt insulting, why are girls wearing what they want indecent and being called a hooker? (I've seen people walking away on a tv show because certain people in the audiance where indecently dressed in their opinion). Why are we not offended by the fact the our freedoms are slowely more and more limited. I agree with you, I don't want to offend anybody unnessecary, but, on the other hand certain groups (no particular ment) seem to have no problem to offend others, but have extremely long toes themselves. 

I still believe you are turning things around. We have this freedom. Period. It might not be nice but it should not be changed, it what we have learned to live with, you grow a shield. I don't like religion, though I hightly respect other peoples believes and I'm interested in them. those are also the values I try to teach my children. I do like the C.Hebdo cartoons, all of them. Power and/or religion should be mocked, it should be questioned and ridculed. That is our freedom, I don't need to remind you it took centuries to be liberated from the tyranny of the Catholic church, seriously, you want to go back? I don't need to hind behind that curtain, I do respect others and their religion, but so let them respect mine.

There is a wave of anti-Semitism going again through Europe. In Amsterdam a wave of attacks on gays has been going on done by a certain group of people. There are whole area's where actually Shariah law is trying to be enforced. Are these still incidents, do you still call THAT tolerance? Children in Western schools are so brain washed they deny the Holocaust. Certain high polital leaders from the middle east are denying it. I don't know about you, but I had tears when I watched Shoah, when I watch the speaches of the survivors of Auswitz this week. I had tears in my eyes.  And these people telling us to tolerate eachother, they went through hell and back, and still they have forgiven. And they are right! But still I see the signals we all have forgotten what happened there. That tolerance goes two ways, and so far Europe is giving up a lot more freedom because of the so-called "insulted parties", and this abused tolerance and being insulted. There should always be a dialog, which shows respect both ways, one party cannot just claim it. I'm very far with you Paul and agree with you, but I will never say that we should tred more careful. No one should ever fear for his live because he drew a cartoon, or wrote a book (becauase where do you put the limit, perhaps have a chat with mr. Rushdi).