Everybody was claiming to be Charlie last week. Charlie Hebdo became a common reference, with few people outside France knowing that hebdo means ‘weekly’ but what the heck.

Everybody wanted to make a statement, a declaration of personal independence, and personal independence has no greater expression than speaking your mind.

I think, therefore I am, but if I think, I must be free to say what I think, without fear or favour.

What happened in France, I believe, was the result of the conflict between saying what you want and doing what you want.

If we were to extend the principle of absolute liberty to absurdity, we could postulate that just as the cartoonists had the liberty to convey whatever message they liked, the terrorists were at liberty to suppress their ideas by shooting them. But at this point we step back.

Complete liberty of speech is one thing; complete liberty of action is quite another, because the latter may give a person the liberty to kill or maim.

The funny thing is that, in cases of domestic violence, speech is considered to be a weapon. We all accept that.

Society has been forced to consider the boundaries of liberty

Blackmail, too, involves speech in one of its forms and can be deadly. The heart may be wounded, even mortally, through the ears. The noblest form of speech, oratory, has brought kingdoms to an end, often a bloody one.

One should not forget that speech, too, is an act and is physical, involving several bodily organs, just like the act of pointing a gun and pulling the trigger.

Both actions should be wilful and conscionable if they are to be considered culpable, because there is a difference between the speech or actions of an insane person and those of a sane one.

By speech, of course, I also mean the printed or written word, or even cartoons, because speech is the transmission of personal ideas to second parties.

Society has been forced to consider the boundaries of liberty.

Were the cartoonists at liberty to ridicule sacred ideals? If not, should they not at least have been stopped before the hotheads intervened or would stopping them have constituted a suppression of a human right which is considered equally sacred not just in France but practically in the whole of the western world?

It is obvious that nobody in his right mind would claim that the terrorists were at liberty to kill them for their taunts.

I used the word taunts quite deliberately. It is more than probable that the cartoonists wanted a reaction because every artist operates to generate a response. It is more than probable that they knew what the response would be from certain quarters.

Adults know that taunts provoke aggression, so the cartoonists acted responsibly, though perhaps with foolhardy courage.

Previous essays had brought violent responses.

They assumed responsibility – personal responsibility – but were they being socially responsible? Quite a few other people completely unconnected to their artistic expression paid the ultimate price as a result. Is that right?

One of America’s greatest jurists, in the case Schenck v. United States, in 1919, said the following: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

His words concern the boundaries of freedom and were uttered in a country which prided itself (and still does) as being the freest nation on earth. It had imbibed the ideas of the French Revolution, cherished them and enshrined them in its Constitution. The Statue of Liberty was donated by France to acknowledge their commitment to this quintessentially Gallic idea.

Can I falsely cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, causing a stampede? Does liberty have no bounds? Are we even at liberty to create a clear and present danger to others because our right to say what we want overrides all other considerations? Each one of us must ponder and provide their own answer.

In the meantime, all decent Muslims should prove they are decent by exposing those among them who are besmirching their religion and imperilling their peace, even while threatening those who are not of their faith.

They must prove they are people of goodwill by shedding those who abuse their beliefs from their midst.

Just saying “Je suis Charlie” is no longer enough. Les jeux sont faits. Rien ne va plus.