Coffee House

Charlie Hebdo stood alone. What does that say about our ‘free’ press?

7 January 2015

6:10 PM

7 January 2015

6:10 PM


Over the coming hours and days there will be a lot of talk – largely by anonymous Twitter warriors – about the need to express ‘solidarity’ with Charlie Hebdo.  Many others will say how important it is to ensure that ‘the terrorists and fundamentalists don’t win.’

But the terrorists and fundamentalists are winning and for the moment it looks like they will keep winning.  Because even before today Charlie Hebdo already stood alone.  In the wake of the 2005 Danish cartoons affair no other major newspaper or magazine in Europe was willing to keep running depictions of Islam’s founder.  Of course they said they didn’t publish, or republish, because they didn’t want to cause offence, or because they thought the (wholly innocuous) depictions were wilfully ‘provocative’ and the like.  And of course Jyllands Posten is a conservative, ‘right-wing’ newspaper.

But they will say the same thing now.  And the left-wing Charlie Hebdo will be abandoned now even more than the right-wing Jyllands Posten was back then.  People will come up with various excuses, but in truth they won’t publish because they are afraid.  The remaining staff of Charlie Hebdo could hardly be more alone.

[Alt-Text]


There is only one way in which this couldn’t remain the case: if tomorrow, or some day this week every newspaper and magazine in Europe, the front-page of the BBC and Channel 4 News websites and every other major news site simultaneously published a set of Charlie Hebdo’s depictions of Mohammed among others.  I put this suggestion to the BBC today during an interview and was told by the presenter that ‘in fairness’ to the BBC they had earlier retweeted Charlie Hebdo’s recent cartoon of ISIS’s leader al-Baghdadi.  Which, of course, isn’t quite the same thing.  Some readers may recall that during the Danish cartoon affair Channel 4 ran a live programme on freedom of speech which included a live vote as to whether or not Channel 4 should show the cartoons.  The public voted that they should.  And then Channel 4 unilaterally decided to ignore the public’s wishes and would not show the cartoons.

It was around the same time that Ayaan Hirsi Ali put it best.  She suggested in the wake of the Danish cartoons affair that ‘we have to spread the risk.’  But the free press didn’t spread it around then.  And I very much doubt that they will now.  I know all the arguments.  I know the fears – that someone from the typing pool or on the front desk will be the target.  I’ve heard every possible argument over the years.

And that is why I can safely say that the free press will fail this latest test too.  For all its historic traditions, its self back-slapping for its alleged ‘bravery’ and so on, there are only a couple of tiny outcrops of freedom.  The rest of the vast, powerful, fearless, outspoken tradition that is the Western press is too intimidated to publish a single cartoon that might conveivably provoke a Muslim.

This is what it looks like to lose a freedom.  Not many people will care today.  But they will tomorrow, or another day in the future.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • David

    A lot has been said over the past few days about freedom of speech. We have heard many voices debating the limits of such a freedom so I would like to take a few moments to express my own feelings on the subject.

    A personal heroine of mine, Rosa Luxemburg once said ‘Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden’. Roughly translated, it means ‘Freedom is always the freedom of dissidents’. The true test for one’s support of freedom of speech lies in their defence of the right of others to express unwelcome thoughts. I am unapologetically opposed to any restriction of the expression of any opinion by any individual or group. Not only do I claim the right to express my own opinion (regardless of how offensive it may be) and have that opinion protected against those who would wish to silence me, I also insist on not being involved in the censorship of others. I believe freedom of expression must extend to hate speech, incitement to hatred and violence, denial of the Holocaust and racist views. The right to hold and express these views publicly must be protected in order that they can be challenged and (ultimately) defeated in the debate. To me, this is what freedom of speech is all about. It seems at times I am in a very lonely minority.

    Many liberals and free-thinkers would disagree at this point and numerous examples have been given in the past few days of when it may be appropriate to limit freedom of speech. However, even the most minor limitation requires (in some form) an invigilator. I don’t believe there is anyone in this world to whom I would give the authority to decide for me what books I’m allowed to read, what music I’m allowed to listen to, what films I’m allowed to watch and what opinions I am allowed to be exposed to. Reciprocally, I would not wish to be given the task of deciding this for others. I believe we have no choice but to take responsibility for this ourselves as individuals. As Abraham Lincoln once said: ‘As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master’.

  • Guest

    Much has been said over the past few days about freedom of speech. We have heard many voices debating the limits of such a freedom so I would like to take a few moments to express my own feelings on the subject.

    A personal heroine of mine, Rosa Luxemburg once said ‘Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden’. Roughly translated, it means ‘Freedom is always the freedom of dissidents’. The true test for one’s support of freedom of speech lies in their defence of the right of others to express unwelcome thoughts. I am unapologetically opposed to any restriction of the expression of any opinion by any individual or group. Not only do I claim the right to express my own opinion (regardless of how offensive it may be) and have that opinion protected against those who would wish to silence me, I also insist on not being involved in the censorship of others. I believe freedom of expression must extend to hate speech, incitement to hatred and violence, denial of the Holocaust and racist views. The right to hold and express these views publicly must be protected in order that they can be challenged and (ultimately) defeated in the debate. To me, this is what freedom of speech is all about. It seems at times I am in a very lonely minority.

    Many liberals and free-thinkers would disagree at this point and numerous examples have been given in the past few days of when it may be appropriate to limit freedom of speech. However, even the most minor limitation requires (in some form) an invigilator. I don’t believe there is anyone in this world to whom I would give the authority to decide for me what books I’m allowed to read, what music I’m allowed to listen to, what films I’m allowed to watch and what opinions I am allowed to be exposed to. Reciprocally, I would not wish to be given the task of deciding this for others. I believe we have no choice but to take responsibility for this ourselves as individuals. As Abraham Lincoln once said: ‘As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master’.

  • David

    Much has been said over the past few days about freedom of speech. We have

    heard many voices debating the limits of such a freedom so I would like to take a few moments to express my own feelings on the subject.

    A personal heroine of mine, Rosa Luxemburg once said ‘Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden’. Roughly translated, it means ‘Freedom is always the freedom of dissidents’. The true test for one’s support of freedom of speech lies in their defence of the right of others to express unwelcome thoughts. I am unapologetically opposed to any restriction of the expression of any opinion by any individual or group. Not only do I claim the right to express my own opinion (regardless of how offensive it may be) and have that opinion protected against those who would wish to silence me, I also insist on not being involved in the censorship of others. I believe freedom of expression must extend to hate speech, incitement to hatred and violence, denial of the Holocaust and racist views. The right to hold and express these views publicly must be protected in order that they can be challenged and (ultimately) defeated in the debate. To me, this is what freedom of speech is all about. It seems at times I am in a very lonely minority.

    Many liberals and free-thinkers would disagree at this point and numerous examples have been given in the past few days of when it may be appropriate to limit freedom of speech. However, even the most minor limitation requires (in some form) an invigilator. I don’t believe there is anyone in this world to whom I would give the authority to decide for me what books I’m allowed to read, what music I’m allowed to listen to, what films I’m allowed to watch and what opinions I am allowed to be exposed to. Reciprocally, I would not wish to be given the task of deciding this for others. I believe we have no choice but to take responsibility for this ourselves as individuals. As Abraham Lincoln once said: ‘As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master’.

  • David

    Much has been said over the past few days about freedom of speech. We have

    heard many voices debating the limits of such a freedom so I would like to take a few moments to express my own feelings on the subject.

    A personal heroine of mine, Rosa Luxemburg once said ‘Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden’. Roughly translated, it means ‘Freedom is always the freedom of dissidents’. The true test for one’s support of freedom of speech lies in their defence of the right of others to express unwelcome thoughts. I am unapologetically opposed to any restriction of the expression of any opinion by any individual or group. Not only do I claim the right to express my own opinion (regardless of how offensive it may be) and have that opinion protected against those who would wish to silence me, I also insist on not being involved in the censorship of others. I believe freedom of expression must extend to hate speech, incitement to hatred and violence, denial of the Holocaust and racist views. The right to hold and express these views publicly must be protected in order that they can be challenged and (ultimately) defeated in the debate. To me, this is what freedom of speech is all about. It seems at times I am in a very lonely minority.

    Many liberals and free-thinkers would disagree at this point and numerous examples have been given in the past few days of when it may be appropriate to limit freedom of speech. However, even the most minor limitation requires (in some form) an invigilator. I don’t believe there is anyone in this world to whom I would give the authority to decide for me what books I’m allowed to read, what music I’m allowed to listen to, what films I’m allowed to watch and what opinions I am allowed to be exposed to. Reciprocally, I would not wish to be given the task of deciding this for others. I believe we have no choice but to take responsibility for this ourselves as individuals. As Abraham Lincoln once said: ‘As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master’.

  • David

    Much has been said over the past few days about freedom of speech. We have
    heard many voices debating the limits of such a freedom so I would like to take a few moments to express my own feelings on the subject.

    A personal heroine of mine, Rosa Luxemburg once said ‘Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden’. Roughly translated, it means ‘Freedom is always the freedom of dissidents’. The true test for one’s support of freedom of speech lies in their defence of the right of others to express unwelcome thoughts. I am unapologetically opposed to any restriction of the expression of any opinion by any individual or group. Not only do I claim the right to express my own opinion (regardless of how offensive it may be) and have that opinion protected against those who would wish to silence me, I also insist on not being involved in the censorship of others. I believe freedom of expression must extend to hate speech, incitement to hatred and violence, denial of the Holocaust and racist views. The right to hold and express these views publicly must be protected in order that they can be challenged and (ultimately) defeated in the debate. To me, this is what freedom of speech is all about. It seems at times I am in a very lonely minority.

    Many liberals and free-thinkers would disagree at this point and numerous examples have been given in the past few days of when it may be appropriate to limit freedom of speech. However, even the most minor limitation requires (in some form) an invigilator. I don’t believe there is anyone in this world to whom I would give the authority to decide for me what books I’m allowed to read, what music I’m allowed to listen to, what films I’m allowed to watch and what opinions I am allowed to be exposed to. Reciprocally, I would not wish to be given the task of deciding this for others. I believe we have no choice but to take responsibility for this ourselves as individuals. As Abraham Lincoln once said: ‘As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master’.

  • hi

    http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/charlie-hebdo-attacks/free-speech-blasphemy-law-could-bankrupt-a-cartoonist-its-time-we-got-rid-of-it-30893171.html

    Readers may (or may not) be interested that Ireland brought in a controversial blasphemy law a couple of years ago. Ireland is now seeking to review that law, after much call for it to be revoked, and the murders in Paris will probably be the catalyst.

  • Doh

    The “Free” press in the UK have shown themselves to be Islamophobic in the true sense of what the construction should mean.
    The word craven springs to mind.

    • James Lovelace

      Yes. Those who truly are islamophobic, are those who are scared of muslims, scared of what muslims might do if offended.

    • Bonkim

      Absolutely – do we want dark-ages religions and cultures to invade us? It took three centuries or more to drive out evil social and cultural customs from Britain and we don’t want even more virulent forms to infect minds here.

      To be truly free you can be pro or against any religion, culture or any other – grin and bear it.

  • Dodgy Geezer

    …This is what it looks like to lose a freedom. …

    Actually, we lost that freedom to publish a long time ago.

    This is what it feels like to realise that. Luckily, humans being what they are, we will soon all suddenly find something much more interesting to think about…

  • mandelson

    Saw Mr Murray interviewed on Al-Jazeera last night. Dont think I have ever seen such a robust and articulate defence of our right to express ourselves and not have Islamic blasphemy laws shot into us. I doubt he will be invited on Al Jazeera again but it was great to see how someone with guts will not be cowed or coralled into equivocating about Western blame for the dead victims of Islam.

  • Malcolm Knott

    This is why I suggested yesterday that the government should publish the cartoons in the London Gazette.

  • Mungo Williams
  • James

    Very well put. These twittersphere campaigns are a joke.

  • eddie333

    Douglas at his very best….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27FBUpokmIo

  • Hard Little Machine

    It’s important I think to separate the craven from the supporters. There are certainly many media outlets who are just cowards, who scream about this and that the day AFTER someone else gets killed but they ultimately do nothing, and the media outlets who simply support the sentiment of the killers and aren’t going to publish because they honestly agree with the murderous intent. It’s hard to know which is which all the time but certainly one can look at the Guardian or the BBC or the NYT or WaPo or any number of French outlets and see a trend. They’re not afraid of retribution they’re quietly supportive of Islamic mass murder particularly because of the people it targets – Jews, libertarians, free speech advocates and others. We genuinely never expect to see the NYT stick its head up from piles of Op-Eds just this side of Jew baiting race hatred to suddenly announce that they’re on the side of free speech they don’t agree with any more than we expect Iran’s PressTV not blame these attacks on the Jews directly. It’s what they believe, it’s what they do.

    But if a thousand other outlets had stood up before and told the Muslims to go pound sand, if a thousand magazines told them off and told them get lost, then it wouldn’t have left CH as the only target to attack. So that’s on all of us. This is our fault our problem. Not for insulting Muslims but for never having the courage of our own convictions. Governments are like mice – they run from all perceived danger and call that consensus. We should never expect government to backstop us or help us or shield us. It won’t it never does and never will. We can’t rely on the professional cowards in government to push back on any constituency. Ever. So again, it’s on us. If this is the France France wants to be then that’s what it will be. And they and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

  • hi

    Dear Mr Murray,

    I often disagree with some of your opinions but thank you for holding your own on Sky today! You were great, when you were allowed to talk, and spoke the truth when we need it most – well done!

  • Damaris Tighe

    Douglas on Sky News debate today, Thurs 8th: you were brilliant.

  • James Jones

    Dear Mr Murray,

    Thank you,

  • Dan_Simon

    It’s not cowardice. If it were cowardice, then journalists would have self-censored to protect themselves against militias and anti-abortion terrorists in the US during the 1990s, neo-Nazis in Europe today (and for many decades now), and repressive right-wing regimes around the world. In fact, journalists have a long, creditable history of great courage in standing up to threats of violence from groups and governments to which they happen to be politically opposed.

    If they’re self-censoring today to protect Muslim sensibilities, it’s not because they’re afraid of Muslim terrorism–it’s because they’re sympathetic to political Islam. And indeed, there’s a clear and unmistakable correlation between news organizations’ self-censorship of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons over the last 24 hours, and those organizations’ political sympathies.

    • justsomeone

      It’s both. And you can’t compare the danger posed by Islamic nutcases to anti-abortionists who haven’t yet opened fire on journalists nor murdered lots of people in the wake of a cartoon. Were they to have done so, I think journalists’ response would have been cowardly.

      • Dan_Simon

        Actually, the right-wing “militia” violence of the mid-1990s in the US included the bombing of the offices of the main newspaper in Spokane, Washington. Oddly enough, no American newspapers were intimidated into meeting far-rightists’ demands as a result.

        • justsomeone

          It’s interesting but … did the anti-abortionists behead pro-abortionists and film it? Did they actually shoot journalists at point blank range?
          These Jihadists would scoff at their meager efforts.
          Perhaps if the anti-abortionists had done these things, the surviving journalists would have explained that they will not be cowed and then begun to avoid causing offense to the anti-abortionists. Or perhaps not. If they would be, it would be cowardly and craven. Perhaps political correctness would dictate a true ‘never surrender’ attitude to that and not to this.

  • whs1954

    You write this post for the Spec, but will the Spec these cartoons publish either?

  • MathMan

    If anyone wants to know about the benefits of diversity they should google – Jared Taylor on diversity.

  • James Case

    I am afraid to say that I agree with your conclusion. The acid test is whether Charlie Hebdo could be published and distributed as an English version in the UK or even the USA? Irrespective of the readership’s appreciation of the type of humour, I believe that it would be hounded to death by all the usual suspects with the eager connivance of many parts of the print and broadcast media.

    • justsomeone

      And our politicians would have condemned it and arranged to have it stop publishing, probably arrested on hate-speech or for inciting violence.

    • Bonkim

      The French are overtly racist and probably a good match for the Islamic fifth column living there. Freedom only accepted if defined by the French. Their colonial history has been bloody and brutal, and they had to retreat in disgrace – Dien Bien Phu, Algeria, Tunisia, etc, etc, unlike the British experience. Regardless of the terrorist threat doubt if British readers will accept the types of cartoons in Charlie Hebdo. Talking about all publications containing similar cartoons is therefore meaningless.

  • taylor

    Spot on – every newspaper in our country should show a cartoon. Isn’t “the pen mightier than the sword”?
    By the way, stop David Cameron and Ed Miliband from taking the moral high ground by criticising Farage’s comments and saying “it is not the time”. It is the time.

  • ChrisChaos

    PUBLISH THE CARTOONS YOURSELVES TODAY

    • hi

      I am not convinced they need to be re published – they aren’t THAT good! – and so it could be viewed as just an act of gratuitous offence. What is needed is new commentary, and new cartoons. Publish all the cartoons being bade about this horrendous act, and publish future criticism.

      • justsomeone

        Why should we give a damn about how some people might choose to view it as an act of gratuitous offense? It isn’t. And if some people like to think it, they should learn to live with it. They aren’t in kindergarten anymore and whining “this offends me” should not matter to anyone. Then they’re grow up and get on with life.

  • Mungo Williams

    Free press? Your flagship the Telegraph doesn’t even allow readers to comment. The normally intelligent Tim Stanley has a thoroughly dim column which tells us that this is “a terrorist problem not an Islam problem.” His weakest ever I think. Can we take him to task on this? No we can’t — comments not allowed. No wonder I and most of my friends look at the Telegraph less and less.

  • Morten Olsen

    Where do you find “free” press?

    • Bonkim

      Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

  • ArthurSparknottle

    So much for free expression. My link to Charlie Hebdo cartoons was deleted. Too risky for the Spectator. How brave of them.

    • Richard

      Craven cowards. But that’s the British establishment for you. What really happened to this country?

      • Bonkim

        Britain expanded and prospered by adapting and changing, and containing/managing dissent for three centuries whereas the continentals have been killing and pillaging all through the centuries until the last.

    • http://www.french-news-online.com/wordpress/ FrenchNewsonlin

      Published them here http://www.french-news-online.com/wordpress/?p=39384, as have numerous continental papers.

  • Chino Gambino

    Sadly I think the press will fail this test too. CNN and other outlets are already censoring the picture of Carb holding up the cover of his own paper. Utter cowardice and a further disgrace to an already disgraceful loathsome profession.

    Westerners love to go on about freedom of speech yet live in nations which do not really protect it. The truth is the west never truly agreed on freedom of expression outside the US, I can be arrested for offending the wrong people or drawing the wrong pictures in our so called liberal democracy. Now I can add that grovelling ‘liberal’ apologists will defend the hurt feelings of murderous Muslims over my freedom of expression and ultimately thought. Unfettered free thought is not as widely cherished a value as we would like to believe, the Muslims are far more unified in their totalitarian vision than our civilisation is a liberal one.

  • Zionist lackey

    The UK press and media (with one or two exceptions), forfeited their right to free speech when they refused to stand by Salman Rushdie in 1988 after the publication of the Satanic Verses and the fatwa that was issued shortly after.

    It was this single event that set the tone for the way we handled Islam for the next 27 years. The liberal class of politicians, journalists, and yes, cartoonists; all peddled softly when it came to Islam. When Charlie Hebdo published a cartoon depicting Mohammed; the BBC, Sky, ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5 all refused to let their viewers see what all the fuss was about, and allow them to make their own minds up: the same with the press, none of them reproduced the offending cartoon – yet today these same agencies pontificate about freedom of speech.

    In true Rushdie tradition the liberal elite turned their back on their readers and viewers, as they did Rushdie, preferring not to offend Islamic sensibilities – while Christianity, of course, holds no such fear for them. Satirising Anglicanism and Catholicism is grist to the entertainment mill of our liberal secularists in the UK.

    I am afraid that nothing will change after the appalling events in Paris. There will be thoughts expressed and prayers said for those who were murdered; and candles will be lit at many a pyre of flowers throughout Paris. High flown political rhetoric about democracy and defending its many freedoms will be annunciated from parliament and pulpit in the coming days.

    Then it will be back to normal for our liberal establishment in the UK. Back to appeasing Islam. Back to saying these reprobates and their mediaevalism has nothing to do with the vast majority of Muslims.

    The truth is, that these murderers may be in a minority within the Muslim communities within Europe. But Europe has 15 million in residence, and the UK has 2.5 million. What this represents is a very large forest of Muslims for the minority to get lost in. Especially if, as was proven in the UK with the events in Rochdale and Oxford among other towns; the police refused (because of political correctness) to take action against Muslim citizens who kidnapped and raped young white girls for fear of upsetting the Muslim communities from whom they no doubt emerged: and even the feminists never took to the streets to oppose what happened – this suggests that our own Muslim areas are no-go ones for the police.

    Once this tragic story is removed from the headlines the same liberal formula for appeasing Islam will continue within the UK, and anyone opposing this formula will be branded Islamophobic and racist.

    There is an old joke. Two Jews are sent to the firing squad by the Nazis. One of them curses his tormentors as they tie him to the post ready for execution: “You bastards will pay for this!” he curses. But his compatriot intervenes; “Moshe don’t! – you’ll make them angry!”

    Moshe’s comrade is comparable to the UK liberal elite and their supplicance to Islam – not Islamism you understand, but Islam. Islamism is the great liberal concoction that is meant to separate Islam from a more extremist form; and it is working, which is why our liberal elite will continue as before to assuage the Muslim community at any cost; because they were the ones that allowed them to flourish among us in such numbers in the first place because of their colonial guilt.

    • Richard

      It’s like trying to find anything critical of Nelson Mandela. In the UK, you won’t. The press has its agenda, which is the sort of hypocritical Leftism you speak of here.

      The idea of colonial guilt is interesting to me. Turks have no such feelings. Negroid Africans in southern Africa who ethnically-cleansed the land of its indigenous San and Khoi have no such feelings. In the UK, the idea of colonial guilt is used to bully and subvert the population. It is taught to non-white immigrants the moment they arrive. There is no doubt the Left have completely dominated the UK, but I wonder how it happened? The more conservative elements must have been completely incapable and useless to have allowed this to happen.

      In general, you are completely correct. Organisms that cannot adapt to new situations tend to die out. We cannot adapt, we simply mouth the same platitudes and tell the same lies. No wonder we are headed for extinction. In large measure, we’re already there.

  • The Great Cornholio

    Vivre Charlie Hebdo!

  • ArthurSparknottle

    Every one of us should post something like this.

    http://rantingoldgit.blogspot.co.uk/

  • ArthurSparknottle

    Those who say that the UK has long abandoned commitment to free speech are perfectly correct. The politically correct stance that no one may be offended, especially if they are religious and in particular if they are Muslims has long ago swamped any desire among journalists and publishers to even question Muslim behaviour, let alone poke fun at Muslim icons. You can create a musical or a comedy portrayal of Christian icons, but Muslim ones???? Let’s see a comedic portrayal on the lines of The LIfe of Brian about Mohammed – maybe ‘The Life of Mo’, a story of how caravan trader Mo (no relation) struggles with a band of enthusiastic fans of someone else and strives to convince them that he is just a spice trader going between Mecca and Medina with a string of broken down camels and two donkeys. Mo could be played by Russel Brand, and ought to have an eye for the ladies, getting into trouble during stop offs with a variety of wronged husbands and outraged fathers.

    • Richard

      Can you imagine? The same people who went to see The Life of Brian will be protesting outside the cinemas.

      • http://www.french-news-online.com/wordpress/ FrenchNewsonlin

        Burning them down you mean?

  • james allen

    I care, and I detest the spineless, gutless twerps who run our news outlets. Shame on them.

  • Steal lich

    fdgf

  • Realismista

    Good article apart from the inaccuracy about the European media refusing to re-publish the Danish cartoons. In fact, during the days after the original publications and ensuing protests, several newspapers across Europe did re-publish the cartoons as an act of solidarity with the Danish cartoonist. Britain was the exception: not one major newspaper in this country re-published them. I don’t remember The Spectator doing so either.

    • Bonkim

      Different style, French overtly racist undertones don’t sell here.

  • Davidh

    Exactly correct. Why don’t we see a re-print of the “offending” cartoon at the top of this article? And with every article reporting these events and claiming shock at the outrageous attack on freedom of speech? And they should be holding up copies of the cartoon on the streets of Paris instead of those pens.

  • Lady Magdalene

    Well said. Every single western newspaper and newspaper should be publishing cartoons of Muslims and the prophet today.

    But they won’t. Hodges explained why in the DT. He’s afraid.

    Suddenly our brave political commentators are terrified of the “religion of peace.”

  • grimm

    I am very much in favour of upsetting Muslims, moderate or not, as their primitive and backward religion enjoys a level of respect in the West it does not deserve.

  • http://pressroom.prlog.org/eLiza1/ Elizabeth Jane

    I support cartoonists! I support Charlie Hebdo! Every newspaper and magazine should publish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed in defence of our cherished freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom to criticise religion!! We cannot defeat the enemies of freedom by caving in to them!

  • justsomeone

    French television informs us neighbors of one of the jihadists describe him as “quiet, pure and very religious”. So we know who is at war with us. Or does someone think that his being “pure and very religious” has nothing to do with his actions?

    He’s a member of the Muslim immigrant population, born into this parallel population in France.

  • DNACowboy

    Free speech died the day Blair introduced the religious hatred laws and until that dark stain is removed we will live with the shame ever more.

  • janjansen

    Thanks Douglas, good piece.

    Let’s also not forget the talk about ‘courage’ directed at Sony! 😉

Close