Questioning mockery as a valid form of freedom of speech

Dear Editor, I think it’s important to understand that we can condemn the brutal attacks on the Charlie Hebdo staff in Paris, without necessarily throwing in our support behind what the magazine actually does in terms of its portrayal of religious belief.

Lawless, merciless killing is an horrific evil, but mockery of people’s sincerely held beliefs is a terrible refusal to take other people seriously and is an expression of scorn and despising.

It is an abuse of freedom of speech, because religious beliefs can be analysed and even criticised without resorting to mockery, as Pope Emeritus Benedict’s Regensburg address showed.

That there are people who would kill in response to what they see as blasphemy surely shows that they hold certain things to be sacred, whereas the champions of supposed free speech want a world where nothing is sacred.

When John Cleese was defending the film The Life of Brian against criticisms by Malcolm Muggeridge on the BBC in 1979, he said: “400 years ago, we would have been burned for this… I’m suggesting we’ve made an advance”, to which Muggeridge replied: “… you have not made an advance”. We can condemn what the attackers did, without condoning what the victims do.

Yours etc.,

Mark Hickey,

Sandymount,

Dublin 4.