Charlie Hebdo saw that free speech is for all

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/30/charlie-hebdo-saw-free-speech-for-all

Version 0 of 1.

The issues raised by guarantees of free speech are not simple, but I can think of no principle that is more important. The writers objecting to an award to Charlie Hebdo (I admire Charlie Hebdo’s courage. But it does not deserve a PEN award, theguardian.com, 28 April) are undermining the whole idea. They note that they would support controversial expression but not reward it, and go further when suggesting that certain groups must be protected from what those groups take to be derogatory comments. To apply that idea universally would gag any kind of non-conforming expression and offer support for those extremists who, such as the killers in Paris, believe they are right to murder opponents or to issue fatwas against those who don’t believe as they do. It would give the right of 7.5% of the population of France to determine what can be said to the remainder of the population. The contributors to Charlie Hebdo, unlike a good many western journalists, dared to publish in full knowledge of the dangers from theocratic zealots with no concept of individual freedom. Freedom of speech is too important to be circumscribed by conditions determined by individuals or groups to be critical of their own beliefs.Larry JohnstonModrydd, Brecon

• Thank you Nesrine Malik (It’s still right to honour Charlie Hebdo, 29 April) for taking to task those who say it was wrong to honour Charlie Hebdo. Hebdo was ill-advised and offensive in publishing its cartoons. It was also upholding the principle of freedom of expression. If people of supposedly progressive views cannot see that, they badly need to reset their moral compass. Are we allowed to say things offensive to racists, homophobes and misogynists, and if so why should a particular faith group have the privilege of not being insulted? It must warm the cockles of every jihadist’s heart.David HarrisLondon

• The Charlie Hebdo staff who Nesrine Malik asserts have “indeed” published racist and sexist cartoons are not around to defend themselves from the allegation. Having published the allegation, the Guardian should at least refer readers to what will have to do as a rebuttal: shortly before he was murdered, Stéphane Charbonnier wrote an impassioned denunciation of racism alongside an eloquent critique of blasphemy, the orchestrated campaign by a group of “far-right Muslims” against the Danish cartoons, and the de facto support they have received from vitriolic detractors of Charlie Hebdo.

Charb cannot argue back now, but those who read Malik’s allegation should at least give him the respect of reading his Lettre aux escrocs de l’islamophobie qui font le jeu des racistes – a translation of which is available at goo.gl/KDeA9YPeter McKennaLiverpool

• PEN views ridiculing a disadvantaged minority’s deeply held religious beliefs as courageous. Nesrine Malik thinks it is irrelevant if the minority in the same country chooses to ridicule the majority, it will be of no consequence. Please try it.Naseem KhawajaYateley, Hampshire