Breaking News - Allegedly 10 people killed at office of satirical magazine in Paris

People are allowed to agree to disagree. Good idea sometimes if you ask me.

Are you still debating things with your family members in debates that started years ago?

Do you change your mind often thatbags?

More brilliance on the subject of fanaticism, this time by Howard Jacobson. High recommend from me. Do have a read.

If there were 10 steps to full freedom of speech, you would be objecting to step 1.

That sounds anything but freedom of speech to me janeainsworth.

having words put in one's mouth

Feeling offended is one thing. Murdering people because of feeling offended is another. Do you know of many murders which extremists have carried out because of mild offence notso?

There is a suggestion that some terrorist actions were at least partly in response to perceived injustices towards Muslims elsewhere, for instance the Middle East.

Yes soon.
I'm in favour of the freedom to express one's own opinions without having put in one's mouth by other posters.

grin (re soon's remark to ja about freedom of speech on this thread)

Thank you notso.

Yes, that's my point - they don't need excuses.

It takes very little to offend - even if we all walked on eggshells it wouldn't be enough.

You were upthread.

I thought you were all for freedom of speech jane.

I don't think it did for one moment River ( sorry, but I couldn't find a 'being sarcastic' emoticon for my previous post) I don't believe extremists need an excuse to be extreme.

I'm sure it's not, soontobe.
But it's preferable to express your own opinions, and allow other posters the courtesy of speaking for themselves.

I think Bags is quite capable of expressing her own opinions

I am pretty sure I am allowed to post what I have written.

It cant be anywhere near breaking gransnet guidelines!

Who knows - but it can't have had any bearing on what they did.

On 7th July '05, 4 British Islamic men killed 52 people and injured 700 by blowing up public transport trains/bus.

I wonder if they were offended by the previous day's decision to name London as the host city for the 2012 Olympic Games?

Soontobe re your comment at 14.01
I think Bags is quite capable of expressing her own opinions and doesn't need you to paraphrase them for her.

but actually that is not funny.

They are not trying to impose their faith on us. They are objecting to us taking it upon ourselves to make what are to them offensive comments about their faith.

Incidentally, for the purpose of elucidation, some official person in France has said that free speech is of the utmost importance but that does not, of course, include anti-semitism and racism.

Of course!

Their faith, their laws and their total control as far as I have ascertained from what little I know.

If a simple drawing of Mohammed offends, why draw it?

Are extremists trying to impose their faith? Or their control. There is a difference.

Elo, I think we all know that we don't have absolute free speech e.g. paedophile literature is rightly banned, so all things can never be equally considered for publication.

It's not a case of "anything goes".

Your mention of Dixie Chicks, theatres, etc only confirms that we should avoid giving in to those who are easily offended and wish to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.

You don't have to publish crude, pornographic, and provocative cartoons to upset the fundamentalists - a simple drawing of Mohammed offends; as does schoolgirls' hair, scantily-clad women, etc. In Israel, fundamentalist Jews caused a lot of violence and mayhem attacking advertising billboards and building roadblocks to prevent public transport on the sabbath. The majority of citizens in that country live a secular lifestyle.

Extremists want to impose their faith, as they see it, on the rest of us. I think we must resist.