Son tries to teach me the error of my ways

It might be fun to have a kid that I could kick around
a little me to fill up with my thoughts
A little me or he or she to fill up with my dreams
a way of saying life is not a loss

I'd keep the tyke away from school and tutor him myself
keep him from the poison of the crowd
But then again pristine isolation might not be the best idea
it's not good trying to immortalise yourself

It might be fun to have a kid that I could kick around
create in my own image like a god
I'd raise my own pallbearers to carry me to my grave
and keep me company when I'm a wizened toothless clod

Lyrics: Beginning of a Great Adventure, Lou Reed (1989)

The problem with having children is that they grow up, leave home, and no longer hang on or even agree with your every word.

Further to my Charlie Hebdo post I received a slightly terse email from my son, 20.

Felt slightly disappointed in your blog post about Charlie Hebdo. You said that free speech has its limits and then said that you wouldn't ban offensive cartoons etc. But that's the whole point. In saying you think free speech has limits you are saying that you accept in principle that some things shouldn't be allowed to be printed.

There's a huge difference between self-censoring and censoring and state censoring or self-censoring as a result of fear of violent reprisal. Anyway, I don't like the word self-censor because the whole point of censoring is that you are trying to stop the very idea reaching people. Therefore, you can't self-censor something you have already thought - because by virtue of having thought it you haven't been censored, by yourself or by anybody else.

Yes, maybe we wouldn't go out of our way to offend someone at a dinner party. But with the case of Charlie Hebdo they were satirising a religion which was founded by a man who had a Muslim girl killed for criticising him and personally beheaded over 200 Jews. It is also a religion which claims to be the only Truth. It claims to be the end point for civilisation and morality. In addition to this, many of its followers would seek to impose their beliefs on the rest of the world. They do not care that I find this offensive. So, to be blunt, I don't care if I offend them, deliberately or otherwise.

And let's not forget that most of these cartoons are fairly clear, to me anyway, to be either mocking the religion itself or the extremist followers of that religion. If I saw a cartoon which depicted a member of the EDL (holding an English flag etc) would I be offended? After all, I am white and English. I could claim that this makes out all white, English men to be barbaric. But obviously it doesn't and obviously I'm not offended. Islam is an ideology, like any other, and therefore means I or anyone else can be deliberately offensive to those who hold that ideology. It doesn't matter if it's a very deeply held ideology, it is still a man made ideology which you have chosen to adhere to.

Maybe this will change your mind and merit an update entitled 'Son helps me see the error of my ways'.

Meanwhile Chris Snowdon has tweeted a link to this post, Charlie Hebdo Reaction: Part 2, Know Your Enemy.

It's a bit long-winded for my taste but worth reading if you have time.

Update on Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 12:28 by Simon Clark

Talking of Charlie Hebdo …

"Without freedom, peace is a jail" pic.twitter.com/HVX9iueilD

— Georgie Keate (@georgiekeate) January 16, 2015

.@georgiekeate OMG, he's smoking a cigarette. You can't show that!

— Forest (@Forest_Smoking) January 16, 2015