To wish our press made a stand for enlightenment values....

[Babycham1979]

....and all published the cartoons of Mohammed on their front covers tomorrow.

The right to freedom of expression and to cause offence are fundamental principles that underpin European values and liberal western democracy; surely the only response to the Charlie Hebdo shootings is for our society to make a stand against this kind of fascist terrorism and show that we can't be cowed by bullying.

Some people may be offended, but that's the price you pay for reaping the benefits of living in a modern, liberal, secular society. If our media bows down to this kind of violence, surely the nut-jobs have won? Self-imposed censorship is still censorship.

To wish our press made a stand for enlightenment values
....and all published the cartoons of Mohammed on their front covers tomorrow.

It's easy to ask others to put their lives at risk, isn't it?
Why don't you plaster one on your front door and make your own stand?

And no one has taken away your 'rights'. Stop being so over dramatic.

You can still publish drawings. But if you do you need to accept it will increase your risk from loons.

I wouldn't want to see stuff like this published in any British paper, and, were it published out of context in this country

Given how 12 people were murdered in cold blood for "I'm offended ! crimes of the cartoon variety!!" I don't see how the publication of said cartoons could be anything other than in context. Like it or lump it, the cartoons are an essential component of the context.

Since we are talking about context, (hypothetically) choosing to expend your time, energy and funds on peacefully protesting the publication of drawings which were (hypothetically) republished in the context of being used as an excuse for mass murder .... seems like very skewed priorities.

does it also take the piss out of mainstream sacred cows as well

Depends on what you mean by mainstream sacred cows. What are the sacred cows in Britain and other parts of Europe ?

As far as I can see, humans take the piss out of any sacred cow. The extent, degree and regularity with which they do it most likely depends on how likely it is to get them shot, tortured or imprisoned.

When I lived in Thailand more than 20 years ago, I would very very occasionally hear/see satire aimed at the Royal family. But in a very hush hush, grass roots, keep your gob shut kind of way. Because... prison is not fun.

Whereas in Britian in the same timeframe, the royals were often the subject of cartoons. And featured regularly in Spitting Image.

Maybe the satire, bit by subversive bit, helps pick away at the sacredness of the cow, until it is a toothless not so sacred cow, loses it's power and can't dictate to anybody anymore. At which point the satire runs as free as the wind. Like a pencil based safety device to help make sure there is no backsliding.

I would love to see this stuff in as many newspapers as possible

Islam should be ridiculed, mercilessly, same for all other religions.

To think that creationism is being taught at some schools makes me shudder.

The more people are given the message that they are living in the stone age and that it is wake up time, the better.

the person who ALLOWED the publication of the vile stuff is responsible

The murderers are responsible for the murders. Let's have no equivocation about that, please.

Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, especially the religious ones, were crude and sometimes nasty. It was very much in that Rabelasian strand of the French tradition-bawdy, shocking, and vulgar.

The point is though, that in France as here your recourse when confronted with a Charlie Hebdo cartoon you didn't like was restricted to (i) going to court (tried, quite properly by some Muslim groups, and failed, over the original publication of the Mohammed cartoons); and/or (ii) your own campaign of protest-there were Facebook campaigns and online protests about it by Muslims and some non-Muslims who thought the magazine had gone too far.

That's all fine. You don't have to 'defend free speech' by sitting on your hands while someone publishes things you think are reprehensible. It is ironic as well as stupid when people meet complaints about a publication with the shout 'Censor! You're imperilling free speech!' There's nothing at all wrong and everything right about where the limits of free speech (there are always limits, whether legal or cultural or political) ought to be set. Muslims and non-Muslims alike ought to be able to participate in that debate, and it wold be helpful in fostering our tradition of free speech if people didn't jump up to castigate Muslims every time they entered that debate and said they'd like the limits in relation to religious speech set more strictly. I don't agree with them, but they've got the right to say it and labelling them all as sinister Fifth columnists is not constructive to say the least.

I would not object if they were, but I don't particularly want to see the offending cartoons republished. I do like to see all the new cartoons that are being published commenting on where we are now after this horrific attack. Effectively saying 'Aha! Stuff you, we offend you all again!' is all very well, but can we not do sometime more pointed, more thoughtful, defiant and determined?

Sorry, I meant to say:

There's nothing at all wrong and everything right about debating where the limits of free speech (there are always limits, whether legal or cultural or political) ought to be set.

Interesting comments on this from various editors here

Editors Rusbridger and Rajan defend decision not to publish Charlie Hebdo Muhammad front page

Rusbridger makes the point that there are some of those cartoons that The Guardian wouldn't publish normally and they weren't going to change and publish them now. Interestingly the BBC has a blanket policy of not representing Muhammad.

If I had self censored, you would have been less twisted knickers in response actually it was you muttersdarkly who twisted your knickers hence the cartoon. i don't take the opinions of strangers on the internet so personally......

'I do think there's a valid question about satire in a truly enlightened society: does it also take the piss out of mainstream sacred cows as well, or just those on the fringes? And is it really so brave and powerful if it isn't really attacking power/mainstream ideals, just the minority or fading ones?'

Well, look at any copy of Private Eye, and you'll see them ripping the piss out of the Queen, the PM, the House of Lords, the clergy; in fact, pretty much all mainstream sacred cows. I don't actually see bonkers Islam as a vulnerable, fringe or fading ideology. Count the number of niqabs on any inner-city high street. The medievalist oppression of women (for example) is a mainstream ideology.

Surely, one eof the aims of terrorism (at least a tactical one), is to scare us into changing the way we live. And so, when knee-jerk authoritarian governments (Blair and Bush, I'm looking at you) impose draconian measures to limit our freedoms, the terrorists have won.

If we demonstrate the balls to carry one with our everyday lives in spite of their threats, they have lost. Reprinting the cartoons is not only an act of defiance; it's proof that they can't defeat us with threats.

Babycham1979 If one of the aims of terrorism is to scare us into changing the way we live, what do you think of Rusbridger's statement that

^“There was a Twitter frenzy of trying to persuade people to print more and more offensive material.

"We did print about four or five images of Charlie Hebdo…

“There are some very offensive ones that The Guardian would never in the normal run of events publish.

“We completely defend Charlie Hebdo's ethos and vales and the right to offend in the way that they did. It felt to me there was tokenism in demanding that The Guardian should change.

"The thing that is important is that we don’t change as a result. If they want us to change, and become more inflammatory and contribute to a hardening of attitudes in society one of the things The Guardian can do is not change.”^

So although you feel printing them is an act of defiance, that act would in itself be changing what The Guardian is. It's kind of a contradiction.

It is natural (or common sense as Sugar says) to decide to stay quiet and try not to antagonize them and hopefully they will go away and not hurt you and your loved ones

i wouldn't say i'm afraid of terrorists in that sense kawliga....like pretty much everybody else i'm afraid in the sense that they will poison all the good in the world if they are left to carry on unchallenged.
i grew up in a conservative muslim household which restricted my freedom and denied me my basic human rights....i know exactly what i'm talking about when i say we have to approach this from a position of more maturity, awareness and responsibility than has been shown so far. i have spent my whole adult life to date standing up for my own and others right to Freedom/human rights and breaking those chains that hold us down as individuals and as a society. Taking a stand against evil/ignorance/violence has never, and never will, phase or intimidate me. We have to play it clever and always be steps ahead of terrorists.

if a child gets angry and lashes out when they see a particular image - you don't keep shoving that image in their face with the attitude of 'i'm going to keep showing you this until YOU change your reaction to it!'.....WE in the western world can deal with this and exercise our freedom of speech and expression AND stand up for others at the same time in a MUCH more responsible fashion that doesn't end up playing into the hands of terrorists and the deliberate annihilation of innocent lives.

i do not believe they will 'go away' if we ignore them. they and their brand of fanaticism will only 'go away' if WE deal with them appropriately. the government and media are fully capable of standing up for freedom and human rights in a more responsible manner without resorting to these kind of tactics.

deliberately publishing offensive and antagonistic material is NOT the way to deal with terrorists like them. We have freedom of speech and expression but it is already censored to within the context of the law....which means it's wrong to deny the holocaust, it's wrong to incite racial hatred etc.....and publishing this kind of rubbish IS inciting violence and hatred. these terrorists are looking for ANY excuse to spread their evil and this magazine played right into their hands.....all because they chose to keep poking 'a rabid dog'.

it's wrong to deny the holocaust

It is wrong, but there is no UK law against it.

if a child gets angry and lashes out when they see a particular image - you don't keep shoving that image in their face with the attitude of 'i'm going to keep showing you this until YOU change your reaction to it!'.....WE in the western world can deal with this and exercise our freedom of speech and expression AND stand up for others at the same time in a MUCH more responsible fashion that doesn't end up playing into the hands of terrorists and the deliberate annihilation of innocent lives.

for one thing, you are equating children and muslims, which isn't very charitable to muslims. Second, if a child has unreasonable reactions to anything, say violently responding to a cartoon, we DO train that out of the child and tell them they are unreasonable.

Third, we are not one entity. You are speaking of the west as if we made collective decisions on these topics. We don't. Some media/people are absolutely out to have reasoned, calculated, well-mannered and thought provoking discussions, and others are out to shock, and some are out to do both. I, personally, do not like to insult people, but I see the importance of satire. So, when I discuss these things with people, I don't just whip out a cartoon, but I see that others might.

The point is muslims, or anyone else, don't have to engage with the cartoons if they don't want. It's that persons right to print them, and it is absolutely not anyone's right to shoot them.

You can still publish drawings. But if you do you need to accept it will increase your risk from loons.

no doubt the publishers knew that there is a risk. But it's our job (everyone's) to tell in no uncertain terms to those people that responding with violence is absolutely unacceptable. Full stop.

and publishing this kind of rubbish IS inciting violence and hatred

you are using "inciting violence" way to loosely. these cartoons don't incite violence. They don't ask any reader to commit a violent act of any kind. And they don't incite hatred.

It's an interesting point SugarOnTop . If we are happy to live in a multicultural society (which I am) then we want to do so in a positive way. Respecting those around us and treating them with dignity, in the hope that they do the same. Do we expect people who have a more hardline view of things to be won over if we willfully antagonise them? Are driving more moderate people towards being militant if we don't treat them with respect?

In my view, it's a lot to do with context. Charlie Hebdo is a shamelessly satirical magazine and should be viewed in that context. They go out of their way to be antagonistic or offensive so we can choose to read it or ignore it, knowing that it's satire.

However, do we want national newspapers or broadcasters to also go out of their way to print something known to be offensive to a sector of the population? I'm not surprised the BBC's editorial policy states:

‘Due care and consideration must be made regarding the use of religious symbols in images which may cause offence.’

“And it goes on: ‘The Prophet Muhammad must not be represented in any shape or form.’”

They're a national broadcaster and shouldn't be trying to piss people off. It's not a freedom of speech issue as such. Anyone should be free to print whatever they like but that decision should be taken on the basis of that publication's editorial policy.

you are equating children and muslims, which isn't very charitable to muslims

no. i am equating the undeveloped mindset of children to the ignorant/undeveloped mindset of terrorists.

these terrorists are NOT muslims - they just hide behind the banner of islam. That is is apparent to all decent muslims and others who are enlightened enough. It is NOT charitable/respectful towards the law abiding, non violent muslims that the media and general populace keep referring to these terrorists as muslims and bashing islam.

each individual interprets their religion slightly differently so it is NOT ISLAM that is the problem, it is the PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO INTERPRET IT FROM A EXTREMIST PERSPECTIVE AND THEN ACT ON THAT INTERPRETATION.

It is wrong, but there is no UK law against it

True. however there are countries like Hungary, Germany, Romania, Austria, Belgium,Bosnia, Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Israel, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland and FRANCE that do have a law against it.

France has actually banned the 'comedian' Dieudonne M’bala M’bala from performing in various cities because his performances could pose a threat to public order (he liked to exercise his freedom of expression and speech by making anti semitic salutes popular). His penchant for denying the Holocaust also made him unsuitable for public life.

so france can self-censor from a moral point of view if it chooses.

these cartoons don't incite violence No. They PROVOKE and ANTAGONISE and play into the hands of terrorists carrying out their evil agendas.

Sugar, you are so wrong about this. You cannot self censor just to appease terrorism.

thankyou Lorelei353, i'm relieved to know someone actually understands where i'm coming from and what i mean

it is not 'appeasement'. Self censorship is a means of maintaining and preserving our own values and moral fibre. It is a way of showing by example how a civilised society works.

I don't know if it's self censorship to appease terrorism.

How do we best ensure that all cultures are welcomed in our society? By publishing things we know to offend them just because some fanatics murdered people? How does that make all non-murdering muslims feel? Should we not be treating them with respect?

Again, I'm not saying that publications like Charlie Hebdo should self censor. This type of thing is their whole Raison D'Etre but I also don't think publications that wouldn't normally publish this stuff should now do so to make a point.

these cartoons don't incite violence No. They PROVOKE and ANTAGONISE and play into the hands of terrorists carrying out their evil agendas.

So, so, so wrong. Damagingly wrong.

You might as well say that the doctors carrying out terminations "play into the hands" of evil Christian terrorists who shoot & kill them, as has happened in the US several times.

If you look into the history of 'appeasement' you will notice that it failed to prevent war and so it is not a tactic that i consider to be useful when dealing with terrorism.