Religious satire causes offence, but it is one person's right to express their view and another person's right to express that they are offended. Sadly, there are plenty of religious targets that are worth hitting - from paedophile priests to bloodthirsty imams to rogue rabbis.
As a child, I experienced directly the violent consequences of prejudice and hatred, and understand all too well the serious effects of keeping silent in the face of bigotry. So I stand united with the people of Newcastle who are coming together positively to show that there is no place for Pegida on the streets of Great Britain.
Perhaps the so-called "radicalisation" of these schoolchildren has more to do with being groomed, or acting out to be a rebel, as opposed to well-thought-out politicised acts. The societal/familial background contribute just as much to their actions, something that is entirely overlooked in debates surrounding the radicalisation of British Muslim youth.
If we are to prevent radicalization, Muslim disenfranchisement, and a generation of disengaged youth left vulnerable to fundamentalist ideology, we must find a way forward, and engagement and mutual cooperation lie at the heart of the answer.
The reaction from the Charity Commission on these cases was in my eyes exemplary. Not only did it act swiftly to remove a charity that should have never been on their register in the first place but it also was quick to reassure the public on social media and elsewhere that the programme did 'not reflect the vast majority of charities that are properly run by honest trustees'.
This problem needs to be dealt with properly, and must be tackled with caution. However, to resolve it, we must first acknowledge that the problem actually exists. A massive step for the vast majority. Then again, to acknowledge a problem exists, we must first feel that the grief it causes matters.
The great political truth of our time is this - Islamism is a problem by itself and there are progressives from various Muslim communities across the world waging a life-or-death struggle against it. It cannot be excused or explained away by blaming Western imperialism.
The idea that the entire Muslim community should be watched for signs of adherence to Islam, which will then lead to potential criminal activity, underpins Prevent and the CTS Act. It would be expected that with such policies and matching rhetoric, the public would begin to see the Muslim community living by Islam as a problem, criminal community that should be ostracised.
Speaker after speaker last Saturday warned of an Islamist agenda of stealthy, creeping, subtle Sharification. This involves sustained attempts by Islamists to pressure public institutions, in the name of religious freedom and multiculturalism, to make special allowances for their reactionary sectarian clerical values.
31 European countries haven't made prostitution illegal, which reiterates it to be a global problem, free from association of colour, creed or nationality, rather than the actions of the 'insidious Muslims in the far East'.
n Jordan, a moderate yet socially-conservative country and for long a beacon for religious co-existence in a turbulent region where intolerance and hate speech is on the rise, a Sharia court has allowed a minor to convert to Islam.
The articles of a thousand words, detailing what is wrong with Charlie Hebdo continue. A quick line or two condemn the murder of the cartoonists. Then the rest of the piece that in life they were out of order to satirise and lampoon religion and the religious.
When I wore the hijab there was nothing unusual that happened to me and nothing very different that I experienced while going about my day - most of the time I forgot it was there. I realised that it was more of an experience for myself, rather than an experience to judge the reactions of other people towards me.
The irony behind the CTS Bill is that it goes against every liberal democratic value that Britain prides itself upon. When the bill becomes legislation, any remnant of tolerance that Britain has ever possessed or known will be single handily destroyed.
Standing in the shadow of the attack on Charlie Hebdo and western norms we need to learn from and implement those principles of free speech that Hitchens advocated.
In the same way it is necessary to have limits on freedom of speech, we must too have limits on tolerance of intolerance. Too many independent faith schools break this threshold, perpetuate division and prevent meaningful cross-faith contact. In the interests of better long-term integration, we should gradually ban them.