Islamists won’t kill free speech—we will

‘In my view there is no media outlet in Canada brave enough to allow a full and proper discussion of Islam’

A man holds a pen up at Place de la République as thousands congregate on the day after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, France on Jan. 8, 2015. (Nick Kozak)

A man holds a pen up at Place de la République as thousands congregate on the day after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, France on Jan. 8, 2015. (Nick Kozak)

It is difficult not to be intemperate in the face of nine murdered journalists, two murdered policemen and a janitor, lying in pools of blood in Paris, the City of Lights: the cold, calculated killing spree a response to journalism that was displeasing. The magazine Charlie Hebdo was firebombed in 2011. Though it regularly heaved dung across and beyond the political spectrum and satirized many religious figures and religions including the Pope, Jews, Christians et al, it was Charlie’s caricatures of Islam that brought on the bombs and murders. Not surprising, in our time when virtually all terrorism of the last few decades—whether in Russia, China, Germany, the killing fields of Syria and the Middle East, New York or Boston—has been carried out in the name of Islam.

There is really no point in fatuities about Islam being just as tolerant as all other religions, which was uttered endlessly by commentators covering the Paris horror. The public face of Islam has been hijacked by Islamist fundamentalists with a zero-tolerance policy. Though I really wish we had more than the occasional imam declaring this act to be barbaric, I can understand why Western Muslims—the majority of whom I expect and hope despise this carnage—aren’t taking to the streets to decry what is being done in the name of their faith. When hundreds of girls are kidnapped, enslaved or murdered in Pakistan or Nigeria for attending school (when even in Canada a Muslim women may run a risk of being killed for not upholding the family honour in a forced marriage), when Canadian-born youths are training as jihadists or fighting in Syria, fear takes over. Why endanger your own family or relatives abroad?

“Senseless killings,” said NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair in condemning the latest violence. Not senseless at all. Terror works.  You can see how Islamic terrorism has gripped a culture when even those who may be mentally ill, possibly like Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the lone Parliament Hill gunman, seem to carry out their deranged acts in the name of Islam.  They don’t kill in the name of vegetarianism or Napoleon. Their targets aren’t electricians or acrobats but the people symbolic of Western values—those standing guard over its memorials or working in its parliament.

On the CBC some commentators tried out the notion that Canada didn’t have the same problem as France because our multiculturalism was so much more successful than (failed) French attempts to assimilate its Muslim immigrants. This showed a rather scanty knowledge of recent history. Algeria was until 1962 a “department” (province) of France and its residents held French citizenship. After a bloody war for its independence causing about a million casualties (figures are difficult to verify), about 1.8 million Algerians moved into France with some economic help from the French government. About 800,000 were Arabs or nomads and the other million were the pieds-noirs—Europeans who had lived in Algeria. If Canada found itself with such high numbers of Muslim immigrants—many of whom were unskilled, if not illiterate—our multicultural approach would probably succumb to ghettoes with better living conditions than those faced by the displaced in France but certainly not without serious problems.

For my money, the reason we don’t have a slaughter like the one at Charlie Hebdo is because no such magazine would ever be allowed in Canada. We save our Kalashnikovs for murdering free speech. First we had the human rights commissions who literally jackbooted freedom of expression. The case against Maclean’s centred largely on an article of Mark Steyn’s. The Canadian Islamic Congress didn’t like his piece on Islam and filed complaints with the federal as well as two provincial human rights commissions. Steyn’s work was vigorously defended by Maclean’s and Rogers Communications. Maclean’s and Steyn won. But the cost was high.  I speak from experience. When in 2011 I had the one and only column of my 37 years of writing for Maclean’s spiked, it was on Dutch anti-Muslim immigration politician Geert Wilders. I thought it was pretty milquetoast writing since I was automatically self-censoring and pulling my punches but I really couldn’t blame Maclean’s.  They were suffering from battle fatigue: nothing is more enervating and time-consuming than filling out the endless details and forms that human-rights complaints require. Not to mention the legal fees. “You’d win,” said one of my editors. “We know that. But we just can’t go there again.” In my view there is no media outlet in Canada brave enough to allow a full and proper discussion of Islam.

After the imbroglio with Steyn, Prime Minister Harper gutted the HRC ability to monitor free speech.  The issue went by default to the Supreme Court—an inhospitable terrain for freedom. The jurists took on a case involving flyers written about a cow almost as sacred as Islam, namely homosexuality. The flyers written by “Christian Trust Activist” William Whatcott wanted to bring “sodomites” to Christ for redemption but not into classrooms as teachers on human sexuality. The unanimous judgment of Canada’s Supreme Court (overturning the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal that had allowed the flyers) should have been reprinted in its entirety in a Canadian satirical magazine with cartoons of our jurists were such a magazine allowed in Canada, which, according to the Supremes’ decision, it would not. Yes, we have free speech, said the Supremes citing the Charter of Rights but that doesn’t mean we can say anything we like because free speech may be hate speech or at least hateful to some group. But a guarantee of free speech is not divisible. You can’t guarantee “some free speech” any more than you can be “a little bit” pregnant.

“Everyone has their red buttons,” said one listener to a Toronto radio show on the Paris murders. CNN’s Christiane Amanpour—while condemning the killings in the strongest terms—remarked that Charlie Hebdo did go “over the top.” More than the God-awful (and I use His name advisedly) Broadway hit production Book of Mormon? And where are the red buttons among Christians when thousands of their fellow worshippers are being slaughtered by Muslims in Africa and the Middle East and tortured by communists in China, North Korea and Cuba?

Terror can backfire in the sense that some people finally dislike being scared and react by doing whatever terror is discouraging. This is generally a temporary response. As George Jonas pointed out in a 2013 column, human beings find a way of rationalizing their behaviour so that they can claim they are refraining from publishing or saying something not out of fear but because they don’t wish to offend. They convert the base notion of being scared into a noble weapon of seeing someone else’s point of view. In fact, this is one of the most insidious aspects of terrorism: we wash our brains and convert our fear into understanding. Example: the awful spot CBC put news host Evan Solomon in when reporting the Paris murders. He was given the job of reading CBC’s rationalization to explain why, although the motive for the Paris murders were Charlie’s cartoons of Muhammad and Islamists, the CBC would not show the cartoons in reporting the story. I didn’t tape his explanation, fascinated as I was by its maze of clauses, but the phrase “not to offend” made a cameo appearance.

The West has been ready to give up on itself for some time now. We have no idea of what we stand for and seem to have no faith other than lip-service in the superiority of our institutions. If 9/11 can somehow be made to feel like partly the fault of America, then change foreign policy or administrations and the problem will go away. If young Islamic terrorists are created by feelings of  “alienation” then the problem will be solved by getting them to like us. It’s so comforting. Fundamentalist Islam is on the march and all we can do is worry about giving offence. When the blood of journalists can only be expunged by denying other journalists the right to say or show what they died for, we are hemorrhaging freedom. I have no children but some coming generation will pay the price for their parents’ cowardice.


Islamists won’t kill free speech—we will

  1. Wow, I’m almost lost for words.

    “Just because you believe differently from someone doesn’t give you the right to insult what he believes.”

    In regards to free speech, it actually does. The reason ‘hate’ speech is protected by free speech is that ‘hate’ is completely subjective from person to person. If we are to ban anything anybody finds offensive, then you are going to have to ban Islam, because I find it offensive, as do billions of people worldwide. See how that works? You’re lucky though, I’m nothing like you and I don’t want to ban things I hate, so Islam is free to continue spewing its utter vile wherever it raises its ugly head.

    “Freedom is to respect each other.”

    No it’s not. I am free to not respect you at all, I came to this conclusion reading your vile comments.

    “Charlie Hebdo type of mockery of religion is highly offensive to all people of faith!”

    Actually it’s not, I know many people with faith that laugh at the same ‘offensive’ jokes I do, because they have a sense of humour and don’t take themselves too seriously.

    “We also have the right to be respected.
    Or don’t we?”

    No, you actually don’t ‘have’ the ‘right to be respected’. There is no law in any democracy anywhere in the world that gives you this right. You can however EARN the right to be respected, something you will no doubt struggle to do due to your vile beliefs.

    “First they ban religious symbols,
    then all mention of God.
    Then perversely mock what others hold sacred.
    Then complain about insane actions!!!?”

    So what you are saying is that they had it coming? Pretty typical of your ilk, that’s why people scoff at the idea that your religion is peace. Quite the opposite actually, your religion is authoritarian and murderous.

    Although I will agree with you that banning religious symbols/mentions is awful, I don’t like banning things you see. It still does not justify murder though.

    “Freedom is to respect difference.”

    I don’t think you get this whole ‘freedom’ thing. I really don’t have to respect difference. I can like difference, tolerate difference, love difference, but I don’t HAVE to do anything.

    “I’m not Hindu but I wouldn’t dream of mocking Hindu gods.
    We simply weren’t brought up like that.
    That’s being civilised in my world.”

    Being civilised in my world means not bringing harm to people even if they offend you.

    “It’s time all decent people speak out against perversity in the name of freedom.”

    Who defines ‘perversity’? Your god that I don’t believe in? Doesn’t sound very ‘free’ or ‘decent’ of you. Are you going to start attacking homosexuality next? What else is ‘perverse’ to you other than words and images you disagree with?

    “Believe whatever you want but SHUT UP about others beliefs!!!”

    Ah yes, ‘SHUT UP’. The definition of ‘freedom’ in your world. Sorry love, people like me exist everywhere, we outnumber you, and we’re not going away. If you don’t like what we say, or read, or do, feel free to move to Saudi Arabia where your precious sensibilities will be protected from evil people like me (who don’t murder people based on disagreements about words and images).

    “God banned murder.
    When you mock God and His symbols you mock His laws.
    Then why be surprised when others also ignore those laws?”

    Um, I don’t recognise your ‘gods’ made up laws or symbols. I recognise human laws. Humans have banned murder too (except in countries of your ilk). ‘Others’ (ie Muslims) can break all of gods laws for all I care, they just can’t break human laws.

    “Mockery is not freedom.
    Insulting people is not freedom.”

    Actually it is. Might be harsh, maybe I’m an a*hole? But that is definitely freedom.

    “Because both are also violence in another form.”

    No, violence is when you murder people in the name of your insane religion. Me hurting your feelings is not violence, never will be. (Well, as long as the radfems don’t takeover. Maybe you can form an alliance?)

    “Honour is more important than life”

    What an odd thing to say. Are you the type to murder your daughter for ‘dishonouring’ the family?

    “Let the Charlie Hebdo incident be the last of it’s kind.
    Let’s wake up and put a stop to this! Bring all those responsible to book”

    Yes, lets make the Charlie Hebdo incident the last of it kind. Let’s wake up and put a stop to radical Islamists enforcing their 7th century beliefs on decent people all over the world! Bring all those responsible to book (Just not the Quran).

    • Now that Matt was a thorough and awesome response. Good on you.

    • its not hate speech that has me concerned – hate speech is obvious and should not be tolerated – its the you hurt my feelings speech that seems to be under fire – freedom of speech gives me the ability to argue religion, sexuality and other taboo subjects. I will never surrender my right to discuss these subjects and if my opinion hurts your feelings too freakin bad. I have opinions just like everyone else, my intent is not to harm it is to educate or inform. If you do not like what I say, don’t listen, leave the room or tell me you don’t like it. But to use a Gov’t organization to sue me, to cost me enough money to make me think twice about giving my opinion, well that is harmful, that is hateful and that in my little world is unacceptable. I had this conversation with my Daughter not long ago and her reply is we will never loose our constitutional right to free speech – my reply is we don’t have it and if we did it died a very young death…sorry for the rant…

    • Excellent response. People do not have the right to not be offended. We have very weak free speech protections in Canada, unfortunately; the US Constitution is a deeply flawed document (witness all of the Amendments, and it’s still not that great!) but their First Amendment should be the norm throughout the Western world. If we don’t protect the speech of individuals who believe things we find totally repulsive, we cannot guarantee that we will not be persecuted for our own speech. This is why blasphemy has become the battleground of free speech, in law and in society. Legally, we’re usually fine, the battle’s mostly won (because even though protection of speech is not sufficiently enshrined in the Constitution in Canada, in practice, almost all blasphemers will be vindicated in court if things go that far – and they rarely do). It is in society where we must now act in order to culturally normalize blasphemy. We need far more events like “Draw Mohammed Day” in order to express our ideological solidarity in the face of those who believe physical violence is an acceptable response to what amounts to a thought-crime. Heck, draw Jesus and the Pope in sexually-compromising positions, if you wish to be equal-opportunity! But the point that the author makes about only Muslims reacting to mockery of their religion and its prophet with guns and bombs stands, and the minority of Muslims who believe violent responses to said mockery are acceptable or warranted (plus the majority who denounce violence while calling for religious mockery to be banned) need to grow the $#&% up!

      One small note on the article: the majority of global terrorism may be Islamic in nature, I don’t know (though I suspect it is…in the range of 60-80%), but the majority of American terrorism is by far that committed by right-wing extremist gun nuts, who are basically all Christian (though their very-selectively-Biblical beliefs and values are usually used to justify a war against the government, taxes, and anyone who they fear is out to take their guns away, not those who offend their religious sensibilities, at least not yet). But that’s par for the course in the USA I guess, that they should be breeding a minority of extremists who, if you changed the god they worshiped, would be at home with the culture of Somalia (bonus: no taxes there!).

    • Lots of your fellow muslims do not feel that Islamism is fake Islam. We are stuck in the middle of your religion tearing itself apart and the world apart. Stop making excuses and do something constructive to change things. Now THAT would be useful.

  2. Great column Barbara, you’re spot on.

  3. Please give a reliable (i.e. non-Hamas) source for the “17 journalists massacres by Israel in Gaza, 2014.”

    • it is actually Hamas and the PA who massacre journalists if the journalists dare to criticize either government. Criticizing the Israeli government is not only allowed in Israel it is a strong tradition. Diversity of opinion is allowed in Israel, it is not in Muslims countries or territories.

  4. I’m sending your column on and hope some journalists get it. They should frame it and ponder it while reading it from under their beds. David Studer at the CBC and his ilk in the English broadcasting and print media have come up with all sorts of excuses not to show Mohammed depictions. They should work in radio. Kudos to you and the Quebec media for your stand. Courage and honesty are badly needed in Canada. I lieu of no lone wolf or mentally ill links, the CBC has substituted terrorists and Islamist fanatics for shooters and gunmen even though the entire essence of the France incidents is “…avenging Allah.” My faith in PM Harper was beginning to wane until he came out with his strong statement on the subject. No wonder the mainstream media hates him. We need leadership and courage now as the Islamist incidents will continue. Every day across the globe islamists terrorists are maiming and killing. The Rotherdam child abuse in England wasn’t even reported in Canada.
    As for ‘moderate’ muslims. The reports so far tell me they are worried about getting a few broken windows and some grafitti on their mosque. They try to throw this all back on us, totally ignoring what their brethren are doing and have done. Where’s the protest against the elements in their midst? Where’s the fatwas?
    In the street rallies in France there wasn’t a head scarf I could see on CNNs continuous coverage. But oddly, I did find Waldo.
    Good job Barbara. Your column has wings from me.

    • “Moderate Muslim”


      He or she may WANT to kill you because you are an infidel, but Won’t because he knows someone else in the Muslim Community will eventually get to it.

      • Ideas do NOT deserve respect. People and the sanctity of life do. Religion does not. They are ideas and they MUST be scrutinised. And islam has a LOT of bad ideas these days.

  5. The Obama Administration has been aggressive in attempting to criminalize investigative journalism. The US Government has become the greatest threat to freedom of the press in the world.

  6. I suspect the thoughts and behaviour of Muslims in Canada might be compulsorily different if they didn’t live in a country which, for some reason, isn’t looking through their windows to see if they are good/bad little Muslims. The Imams in Canada can’t exactly have one’s hands cut off or worse for not exactly hewing the line of Islam. And I have a lot of problems with the murk that the term “multiculturism” conjures. While I have to live my life and let them live theirs, I do not not do it at the expense of the CBC and Trudeau’s concept of “multiculturalism.” It doesn’t mean I have to like them or the nonsense that any particular brand spouts – nor do I have to respect their views – I am just not allowed to discriminate against them.

    I suggest that those who want to get by the Mush factor might read parts of Sam Harris’s excellent book, “The End of Faith” particularly the chapters that deal with Islam – titled, conveniently ‘The Trouble with Islam’. After reading the so-called sublimniities of the Koran then try the Hadiths (commentaries), the repeated negativities of which you will find in for easier reading in pages 117 to 121 where Harris quotes several pages of emprications about what us infidels have to go through. Mind you, some fundamentalists of other persuasions can come with a few awfuls too.

    As far as I am concerned, Barabara Amiel’s column, as usual, is right on the mark.

  7. “Mockery is not freedom.
    Insulting people is not freedom.”

    Wrong on both counts. I don’t give a rat’s a*s about your honor.

  8. If Yasmine Zazi’s views are typical of Muslims in Canada (ex.”Believe whatever you want but SHUT UP about others beliefs!!!” ) then we have a problem.

    People in totalitarian states and Islamic theocracies all have freedom of thought, but in Canada we have freedom of speech. You have the right to believe whatever you want: that a talking snake caused man’s downfall, that women were created from a man’s rib, that God’s son was born as a Jewish peasant 2000 years ago, that a 6th century trader was given a revelation in a cave, or that the moon is made of green cheese.

    The rest of us have the right not only to think that these beliefs are riduculous, but to say so as well.

  9. The West has been ready to give up on itself for some time now. We have no idea of what we stand for and seem to have no faith other than lip-service in the superiority of our institutions….

    Our faith is in materialism. Christianity has been under attack (successfully) for generations and is no longer an anchor for us. Materialism is our anchor, and it has no power. Islam has power. Its adherants believe in it strongly, and if any waver, their muslim brothers will encourage them, admonish them, whatever it takes.

    Mohammed is the greatest military leader in history, by far. He led his men in battle, killing and commanding to kill. He wrote a war manual, the Koran, disguised as a holy book. It is holy to muslims, of course. If we had clear minds we would see it as unholy, since it commands them to either convert, subjugate, or kill us. His armies are still killing and conquering today, more than a millenium after his death.

    • Your knowledge of the Koran and Middle-Eastern history is lacking. Did you hear this in church? This is inaccurate, racist propaganda. Go read a real history book.

      • Well, the part about killing anyone non-conforming to Islam is true. It’s in the real history books.

        • Only if you get your history books from your local racist bookstore.

          If that were true, there would be no Hindus in India. The reality is that, while Arabs were certainly an imperial power for many centuries, they did not slaughter everyone everywhere they went. They ran their empires much like European powers. The only difference is that they’re not white, so Europeans and their descendants have long portrayed their empires as somehow worse than European ones, which they weren’t.

          Of course, anyone with a sliver of education who’s not an Islamophobic racist knows that.

  10. Hey Yas,
    Maybe you should hold your breath a bit longer. Passing out might force a reset and dial back the crazy.

  11. The underlying assumption of this article, that Islam and its followers can be treated as a unitary whole, is typical of the long history of Western racist attitudes. Put differently, seeing members of one’s own culture as diverse individuals but those of another as undifferentiated is the the foundation of racism.

    This article also uses the language of imperialism to simultaneously decry violence by non-state actors and justify violence by states. To people of intelligence and conscience, there is no significant difference between a terrorist attack and a drone strike, for instance. But to the apologists for imperialism, they are completely different.

    According to authors like Amiel, all Muslims must be held to account for anything done by another Muslim, but non-Muslims (particularly those who are white and Jewish) are not. We have absolutely no responsibility to apologize for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as the direct result of Bush Jr.’s war, nor for civilians killed in missile or drone strikes.

    And why should we? I, for one, was vocally opposed to Bush Jr.’s war, and I am equally opposed to the remote drone strikes that have only grown in number under Obama’s administration. There is no reason for me, or anyone else who opposes them to feel obliged come out in public after every drone strike to apologize for and condemn it. The fact that I’m not even American would make any assertion that I do so even more absurd. (For the record, I condemn ANY act of violence, whether committed by state or non-state actors, with very, very few exceptions).

    Yet we continue to see writers like Amiel assert that Muslims, the mass majority of whom do not adhere to the same sect of Islam, much less Wahhabi-esque sub-sects, apologize for and condemn any violence perpetrated by someone who calls themselves a Muslim. There is no way to describe this attitude other than racist.

    I don’t think that it’s the job of our government to censor such views, but I would have hoped that the editors at Macleans would have had the good sense to not publish it. If this was an article blaming the entire Italian community for the actions of the mafia, or all Native-Canadians for the actions of Native gangs, it would likely not have seen the light of day. It is a sad sign of how ingrained our culture’s fear and hatred of Islam is that this article made it to print.

    • Joe,

      The italian mafia; when filtered down to their base, is a criminal business organization. If you don’t interfere with their money – making efforts, they don’t come into your home and kill your kids or hack off your head.

      Islam is different. It DEMANDS that people who are not Muslim be killed or enslaved. By definition, a DEVOUT Muslim…..is a dangerous one.

      • A small faction of Islam demands that. They are extremists who target other Muslims with their violence more often than they do non-Muslims (i.e. Sunni vs. Shite conflicts). The mass majority of Muslims are very content to live side by side peacefully with non-Muslims. Anyone with two braincells to rub together and who’s not a bigot would know that, given that we live in a country with plenty of Muslims who don’t go about killing non-Muslims.

        • Joe noted:
          “A small faction of Islam demands that”

          Yes, Joe…I understand that MOST Muslim’s won’t pick up a knife and saw your head off. However, given that there are over a BILLION Muslim’s in the world, it only takes a small faction of that one billion to cause what we are seeing today. If even 1 Percent of that 1 Billion are terrorists, then that is still 10,000,000 problems we need to eliminate.

          As for living in a country with “plenty” of muslim’s who don’t go about killing non-muslim’s, again, we have the same problem. It doesn’t take many of them to cause the problems. But given the number of honour killings we’ve seen, I’d say that Muslim men are the biggest threat to Muslim women.

          Islam has no place in a civilized society. the two cannot be reconciled.

          • First of all, not anywhere near 1% are terrorists.

            Second, there are plenty of white, black, Asian, Native, etc. people who commit murders. It happens all the time, but of course that doesn’t impact on people like you and Amiel because you’re racists, so crimes committed by members of the race(s) you don’t like somehow are somehow much more significant than those by people from those you do like.

            A mentally disturbed and recent convert to Islam shoots a soldier in Ottawa and all Muslims are condemned. Yet when Paul Bernardo killed school girls, somehow people like you two were able to draw a distinction between him and other white people.

            You can try to dress it up in whatever fictitious numbers you like, but the reality is that you’re just a racist.

          • Joe, clearly you don’t know what a racist is.

            I don’t give a hoot about the race of the Muslim fanatic…….just that he doesn’t kill anyone.

            And for argument’s sake, let’s assume that only 1/10th of one percent of Muslim’s are terrorists, or support terrorist activity. that still leaves 1 Million people that need to be eliminated from the earth.

            As for “regular” murders as opposed to the murder committed by muslim’s, you fail to understand a basic concept.

            when a Native guy strangles his wife, or a thug shots someone in the mall…..you don’t see every other native or thug celebrating the murders.

            WHenever a terrorist atttack occurrs and innocents are slaughtered, many muslim’s around the world celebrate. In Gaza and the West Bank…they hand out candy.

            Either you are too stupid to understand that, or your are puposefully obtuse.

            Muhammed can kiss my ass. he was just a goat fking pedophile.

  12. If you don’t like our type of freedom, then please, please move to an Islamic country of your choice and practice their form of freedom. Oh, and while your on your way, please feel free to take as many family or friends with you as you like. By the way no hard feelings, I promise, should you choose a “better” form of freedom and leave.

  13. The whole point of my comment is that faith-based ideas are just that, no matter what the religion. It seems rather pejorative to say that thinking and conclusions based on evidence, reason, and if applicable to the natural world are ‘materialistic’. However, if someone wants to believe in fairy tales that’s their business. The problem with Islam is that down through history it has demanded one kneel to Allah and follow the 4 or 5 rules, otherwise you get your head sliced/chopped off – and that IS history. The only reason it hasn’t prevailed for the last 400 years or so is that technological events and national power has overtaken religious cant. And while Islam has been fractured in its various beliefs and practices since the day that Mohammed died It seems that suicide bombers an ISIS want to have the good old days restored. Barbara Amiel obviously has a viewpoint in this column but her remarks in the article are right on.

  14. This article is spot on. The west is going to give up its democratic rights one by one in its goal not to offend Islam lest Muslims react violently which they almost always do. If all the magazines and newspapers published the offending cartoons the Jihadists would not be able to kill everyone, especially if this would be done in all western countries.

    • So right! That’s why some media’s lack of solidarity is so very offensive to anyone with a thinking brain.

  15. You are a brainwashed victim of precisely what Charlie Hebdo and others are trying to counteract.

  16. Madam, you are merely regurgitating the crap you’ve been fed by others. You need to get de-programmed, and then start thinking for yourself. Try it, it’s oh so liberating!

    • Sorry, this does not belong here. It’s supposed to be an answer to that first commenter.

  17. So Yasmine, I guess you want blasphemy laws? That is NOT freedom. You are free to believe in whatever you want. I am free to criticise your belief system if I find it lacking. That is freedom. Not your version. Why do we continuously need to have this discussion with people who live in the west and don’t understand why the west is free? It is tiring.

Sign in to comment.