CHARLIE HEBDO COVER, WHOSE FREE SPEECH IS IT ANYWAY?

Icheoku asks is the latest cover of Charlie Hebdo magazine indeed an exercise of free speech or is it an unneeded offensive provocation of the Muslim world, whose Mohamed, they do not want anyone to have or depict his likeness in any form including cartoon? If indeed the publishers of the magazine acted under their assumed freedom of speech right, what freedom then does those Mohammedans, who don't want it published or opposed to any likeness or image of their prophet being made known, enjoy?  Icheoku queries don't these Muslims have a right to at least some privacy to their belief that their Mohammed should not to be so "defamed" by a representation which might not actually be an actual Mohammed's likeness or image, but which is reproduced anyway as what he looked like? 

icheoku says if only religion and religious beliefs are rational, but they are not; so anybody religious dogma should as a matter of respect be deferred to including what the Muslims consider sacrilege, mocking or painting their prophet Mohammed. Therefore let us ponder whether or not carrying forward with making a caricature of someone, whom a religious faith holds in such awe and reverence as to frown at any of his representation, is not by itself, a hate speech and actually inciting? Icheoku admonishes that since the over one billion people, the world over, strongly denounce the depicting of their Mohamed in any form, be it cartoon or otherwise, their wish should have been respected and at worst, treated as a public safety concern issue and decision. The world would not be capitulating to the extreme right wing of the Islamist terrorists by abstaining from that which the Muslim world consider and deem as disparaging to their religious head and in also very insulting to their religious belief. Like other prohibited free speeches such as shouting fire in a crowded theater or falsely raising an alarm that would compromise public safety, the authorities in France and the Charlie Hebdo organization, should have deferred to this religious interest of the Muslim world and leave their prophet alone and desist from further cartooning him. 

Icheoku is not advocating a surrender or capitulation to the heinous murders that took place in Paris or that is continually taking place in Northeastern Nigeria or in Pakistan or in Afghanistan or in Canada or in America or in Spain or in India and in all such other countries which these Islamist nihilists have torched their mayhem, but that the world find a more accommodating way to move everyone forward towards possibly finding a lasting peace between the two civilizations. One thing with conflict resolution is that each side must be prepared to make sacrifices and if not depicting their Mohamed would make us free from their incessant attacks, let us thus so sacrifice our right to free speech their Mohammed's likeness or cartoon image. Icheoku recalls when President Obama was depicted in a cartoon as a monkey with extended earlobes which many African Americans did not find funny; not because it is not in the authors right to free speech a caricature of the president, but that certain boundaries considered discomforting should be respected. So let us all in the spirit of give and take, geared towards a more peaceful world, see how we can voluntarily self-censor our free speech rights as needed sacrifice to stop all these madness that leads to needless bloodshed and wanton loss of lives including damage to properties. 

Icheoku says someones' free speech might be derogatory to another's sensibility; and just like a redneck has the free speech right to call President Obama a NIGGER, but doing so is offensive to black Americans including the president and is not and should not be tolerated, regardless. Would anyone say that former Iranian President Ahmadinejad being a Holocaust denier does not fall within such his freedom of speech right ambit to have an opinion different from the universally held? But such is not a good commentary, especially to the ears of the survivors of that man's great inhumanity to fellow man which is akin to slavery, admitted blacks are not as vocalized as the other victims of inhumanity.  Therefore since what is good for the gander is also good for the goose, let us all approach the issue of freedom of speech evenly and apply our unrestricted right to free speech across the board and not be very selective in so doing. If it is not okay to call blacks NIGGER, whites HICK or Jews HYMIE and not be branded  racist, anti-Jew, anti-Semitic, then it should not be okay to confront a tenet of a religion and expect not to be branded anti-Muslim/Islam; except of course we have all reached the conclusion in our narrative that all Muslims should be held accountable for the transgressions of the few of them that wrought this evil terrorism. Until then, may some good heads prevail and may we find a road-map towards a lasting peace on earth. Like Rodney King once said, 'why can't we all just get along together'; and may his words help resolve these religious problems and in that way those who died in Paris may not have died in vain. Icheoku says 'Je Suis Charlie' and asks are you Charlie; as even Prophet Mohammed declares he is also Charlie!