J

strong>Jan. 12, p7

The deadly terror attack on French weekly Charlie Hebdo has put the debate over blasphemy back in the spotlight.

Although people across the globe condemn the attack, disagreement persists on whether Charlie Hebdo'€™s publication of religious caricatures was justified. This disagreement is not alien to the Indonesian public.

Your comments:

I think we should consider what behaviors should be the interest of the state and which ones should not. For example, blasphemy is a religious offense and should not be included in criminal codes (like working on Saturdays or not attending services, and the like).

What should be of interest of the state is when someone intentionally creates havoc and civil unrest by provoking specific groups '€” specifically religious groups '€” knowing beforehand that such actions and similar actions have produced unrest before.

Casio Querea

We cannot want people to freely express whatever is on their mind in the name of freedom of speech while at the same time expecting every individual to react in the same way, whether to pay or not to pay attention.

In this case, repercussions following the release of certain themed cartoons that some people consider simply as art are not unprecedented.

Even Laurent Fabius once said that the magazine'€™s decision to publish the work was totally unwise and only poured more oil on a building that was already on fire (referring to the situation in the Middle East).

Foliar