That was quite an impressive turnout in France and elsewhere?
I am a little confused though. Why?
Fifty heads of state and millions take to the streets, but why? They say it is to show solidarity with the victims of the Charlie Hebdo attacks and their support of free speech but neither reason makes much sense.
Generally when there is a march to show solidarity, it means that the marchers are siding with a particular cause in the face of some opposition or other. Marches take place here in Ireland in solidarity with the water protesters, but that is a show of force against those who support the water charges. Marches take place in other countries against austerity measures or because they disagree with some political situation. So a march is a show of strength by the downtrodden against some aspect of the establishment, but in France, it was the establishment that was doing the marching, so who precisely were they trying to influence?
They were hardly trying to influence those brainwashed brain-dead jihadists who are soaked in a bloodlust and are impervious to reason. Are the mullahs supposed to raise their hands in horror and declare that they didn't realise that so many people objected to being shot?
As for the free speech aspect – that is frankly a laugh. After the shootings in Paris I heard Idiot Cameron on the news expressing his horror. I can't remember the exact words but it was along the lines that "free speech is at the very core of our society". Is this the same Cameron whose police are happily going around arresting people for their inane comments on Twitter?
The problem with free speech is that it is in direct conflict with the Politically Correct. Free speech means freedom to use words and images that others may find offensive. A society should be judged by how it treats the offended and not by how it allows the use of those words. In general, the offended should be ignored as they are the ones who choose to be offended, but if on the other hand the offended resort to murder then of course the full weight of the law must be brought to bear.
Politically Correct is defined as "agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people" [my emphasis]. How precise is "could"? Define "offend"?
It's OK to draw cartoons mocking an [albeit evil] extremist religion but it's apparently not OK to display a Golliwog in a shop window?
They need to think that one out?