"Oh, what character flaw impels me to always swim against the current? Even now, with so many people stricken and determined to oppose murderous Islamists and defend freedom of a critical press, why am I troubled by so many doubts? Must sharp, iconoclastic satire, bravely spiting the powers-that-be with sharp pens and sharp words, purposely insult deeply-felt religious beliefs? A convinced atheist all my life, I have no sympathy whatsoever for religious fanatics, be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist. Some of Charlie's foes were my foes; I enjoy attacks on fanatics, whether in Tehran, Riyadh, West Jerusalem, or West Virginia. For centuries they have caused far too much misery in our world. But that bothersome little voice whispers that, as a journalist, I might not have caricatured Christians while they faced lions in Rome's old Coliseum, or even the most backward-looking Jewish daveners during Hitler's reign. Attacking ISIS is good. But lampooning the beliefs of so many Muslims in Europe who face daily discrimination in schools and jobs, with mosques and minarets often attacked -- and some peaceful Muslims as well? Should satire be unfettered? Almost always, yes! But perhaps not always libel -- or in ridiculing prophets and beliefs that still provide solace to so many? Bloody fanatics must be opposed. But Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad are long dead. Attacking them may sometimes be courageous, but is it wise or good?" http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2015... - Eivind

Žižek feels very differently about it: http://www.newstatesman.com/world-a... (via http://ff.im/1kPoty) - Eivind

Anne Bouey! - Eivind

You called? - Anne Bouey

Hei :) - Eivind