LAST WEEK, Badger mused morosely on the limits of free speech. Little could he have known when he wrote his sally than events would unfold in Paris that reveal how little freedom of speech some are prepared to tolerate. A million trees have died and a million pens have dripped ink on the tragic events in France. Needless to say, the tasteless and tactless on the fringes of political thought, and yes I am looking at YOU Nigel Farage, have proffered up their opinions. As evidence of the depth of ignorance that permeates the right wing media here and abroad, Badger invites you to consider the case of Steve Emerson.

Mr Emerson, who touts himself as an expert on Islamist terrorism and national security on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, announced – as a fact – live on air that the city of Birmingham was entirely Muslim, and was a “no go area” for non-Muslims. Birmingham – according to the 2011 Census – is a city of over 1,000,000 inhabitants. It has an identifying Muslim population of 22 percent, with a Christian population of 46 percent, and 25 percent claiming no religion or not giving a religion. In the same interview, he claimed that in London, “Muslim religious police” beat “anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire.”

Now readers, the Daily Express and Daily Mail and Nigel Farage might want you to think the above is true, but it is – of course – hokum. If Mr Emerson is an expert on anything it is in making a fool of himself. Badger can visualise Steve Emerson brushing his teeth in nonfl uoridated water to avoid being taken over by the Illuminati and wearing a tin foil hat to defl ect rays from the CIA that might turn him into a space hopper. You couldn’t make it up, readers.

But Steve Emerson did. If nothing else, in his ignorance, Mr Emerson has added inestimably to the gaiety of nations. When one can be described, without a hint of post-modern irony, as “a complete idiot” by David Cameron, a man who cannot distinguish between debt and defi cit, then you really have sunk as low as you can go. Now, readers, Badger has had a light-hearted excursion into the wilder realms of political commentary so far, but the time has come to get a little bit heavier. The anti-pasta having been dealt with, we now come to the main course.

Badger is not going to offer an opinion on the murders in France. The waste of life speaks for itself. Still less is Badger going to suggest that events in France could not happen here. The same species of barbarity has happened in this country. What happened in France is, sadly, exceptional only because the initial victims were employed on a national magazine. No, readers, we have had barbarism here.

What Badger wants to talk about is how we live with what has happened. For as long as we consider changing our laws as a reaction to events in France, we are handing victory to murderers. For as long as we allow our government to adopt surveillance powers that will enable it to peek into every crevasse of our personal lives, we are handing victory to murderers. For as long as we consider changing our ways of life and giving up our freedoms because maniacs with weapons and a chip on their shoulders delude themselves they have a hotline to their god’s will, we are handing victory to murderers. It is one thing to wear a badge in sympathy with the dead. It is one thing to mourn alongside others in an expression of solidarity.

It is another thing altogether to change ourselves because others exist who seek to undermine the secular and plural nature of our society. Badger is unfamiliar with French satirical magazines, and does not have a particular wish to acquaint himself with them in the light of events in Paris. Satire is very particular and very parochial. For all Badger knows, Charlie Hebdo has more in common with Look and Learn than Private Eye. But satire, and its frequent accompaniment of investigative journalism, cannot continue and cannot exist in a society that allows every word, jot, tittle and selfi e to be trawled through by the government at its leisure because people died in Paris, or – for that matter – died in London.

Does the UK government think, for one moment, that the writers and cartoonists who died in Paris believed in a surveillance state? It cannot believe that. And, as it does not, its moves towards greater involvement by the security services in our daily lives are nothing more than crass opportunism. A card to play ahead of an election to appeal to that which is worst in us. It will create a society divided by fear and suspicion. That is no way to live, readers, even if you are daft enough to think Steve Emerson has a point. More surveillance will not create a free society.

The French murderers will win a significant battle if, in the endless and hopeless task of eliminating all risk, we allow ourselves to become less free. Badger does not doubt that most of his readers believe in a free society, where people of different races, creeds, abilities, genders and orientations can exist side by side – if not in harmony, then at least with some element of commonality. At the heart of the dilemma we face is a question we need to ask of ourselves. What we need to ask ourselves is not whether we are prepared to limit our personal freedoms , but how far we are prepared to allow the state to limit the freedoms of others. And then we should consider whether we would be prepared to endure those limitations on freedom on ourselves and on our families. Freedom of thought is inextricably linked to the freedom to hope: Badger hopes that we will not turn our backs on freedom. After all, readers, we are kidding ourselves if we think that if we all live in the Big Brother house we will never come up for eviction from it.