To Hijab or not to Hijab

[Brenus]

"As for CH, instead of fostering unity within confessionally and ethnically diverse society (which is ultimately done through propagating tolerance) they chose to mock the feelings of a vulnerable and prone to knee-jerk reaction community." Tolerance is not to accept all values or way of life. Tolerance is to accept someone to have different opinion/religion/culture than you, if in the frame of the Constitution/law/Universal Human Rights.
CH was perfectly in its right to challenge/mock the Islamist superstition and story telling. As each main superstitions is in fact an blaspheme to each others (e.i. Islam doesn't recognised the Crucifixion of Christ which is a blaspheme to Christians).
I recognise and accept the right to the Religious population to believe in a Big Man (Woman/Spaghetti) In The Sky as they respect and accept my right not to, and to openly say it is really but really a stupid idea.
And I as well demand not to be obliged to follow/obey their religious demands/requests/habits/clothing under the flimsy pretext they are offended by it if I don't.
So, CH did mock all political & religious movements. Christian extremists did fire-bombed their office before, the only ones actually murdering members of the publication were the Muslims fanatics.

[Husar]

I think it's morally perfectly justifiable and right to take a stroll in the streets at four in the morning, but in some areas I still wouldn't do it because I'm not ready to buy a new cellphone for my right to take a stroll at four in the morning. Although I assume I put less value on that right than CH did on their right to mock anyone. Some people made decisions and we saw the outcome, you both have a point, now let's put on our hijabs and move on.

[Montmorency]

On the other hand, there are otherwise neither petty miscreants nor criminal organizations that would see you dead or subjugated regardless of what you think of walking at night, and who only now that you've gone on record are preparing to bust into your apartment at 4 AM and gun you down for the sake of the example

[Husar]

On the other hand, there are otherwise neither petty miscreants nor criminal organizations that would see you dead or subjugated regardless of what you think of walking at night, and who only now that you've gone on record are preparing to bust into your apartment at 4 AM and gun you down for the sake of the example

And isn't that a good thing? What about this is "on the other hand"? Yous suggest that what you say contradicts what I said, but it doesn't.
My point was that the realities of the world do not always correspond to what the law says. It's the job of thee police and government to make it so to a degree and the argument here is completely useless unless Gilrandir is actually saying that the terrorists had a right to kill the journalists, which would be ludicrous.
To me it looks like Gilrandir is saying that CH had to shut up or die and Brenus is saying that shouldn't be so and they're repeating it back and forth as though the two statements were contradictory, which they are not. It's the most boring "debate" that I haven't entirely read in a while.