At its most basic level, the attack on French magazine Charlie Hebdo was about suppressing freedom. The Islamic terrorists, angry at how their religion was being portrayed, decided to stop the mockery via murder.

That is the most violent way to censor someone but not the only method.

At least 3.7 million people “rallied” in France.

Back in 2008, where were these protesters as aging French movie star Brigette Bardot was fined about $23,000 for saying that Muslims were ruining France. Her charge was incited racial hatred.

Or what about in 2013 when a British bishop was fined about $2,500 for denying the Holocaust? What did he say that was so horrible?

“I believe that the historical evidence, the historical evidence is strongly against, is, is, hugely against, six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler.

 

“Germany has paid out billions and billions of Deutschmarks and now Euros because the Germans have a guilt complex about their having gassed six million Jews, but I don’t think six million Jews were gassed.”

Where were the angry mobs protecting freedom back in 2010 when Nigel Farge was fined about $4,500 “following his attack on the credentials of the European Council president, Herman van Rompuy, last week.”

As Mr. Farge later said:

Free speech is expensive in Brussels.

Looking at the situation one must come to the conclusion that the only reason 3.7 million people “rallied” in Paris was because violence was committed. In the three earlier cases, freedom was suppressed and people were injured, albeit financially.

I find it rather ironic that people in Europe decide to stand up for freedom but yet don’t seem to have any problems censoring other people.

Is it any wonder their quest is doomed to fail before it has even begun? Freedom is messy but once you start censoring one group and not another and begin making judgments about whose speech is “protected” and whose isn’t you’ve lost the high ground and everything that comes from it is tainted.