they own. rather than going to work to learn a living more on the website. the address on the screens now, aljazeera.com. tonight, free speech is the bedrock of a free society, are there limits, would enforcing limits threaten our freedom. in our panel. should schoolkids be trained to fight back against gunmen, and my final thought on how saudi arabia is missing an opportunity to separate itself from i.s.i.l. i'm ali velshi, this is "third rail". after i.s.i.l. struck paris, it

called the city of light the capital of prostitution and obscenity. pleasures and freedoms parisians enjoy was in a front that must be punished. too many times in recent years we saw people willing to kill anyone that represents something that offends their deepest beliefs. one ugly example, riots in 2006, triggered by a danish newspapers publishing cartoons of prophet muhammad. beyond that grotesque response more people criticize free expression as a tool in the hands of the privilege. who use words to mock and control minorities. >> words are weapons. >> there is no easy and absolute way out. we do have to decide when, where and how we will limit speech. >> do we use free speech to insult a marginalized people. or use it to enhance discourse between people living in an

interconnected world. >> that is smart and sensitive. free speech means different things in different countries. in the west, nations limit free speech. some insist free speech should be absolute, with no limits at all. >> who will you appoint. who will be the one that says i know where the limits will be, i know how far they can go and when you've gone too far. >> joining us is the foreign editor of the danish newspaper. the paper's culture editor. he was nominated for the nobel peace price. prize. he is the author of a cartoon, one that ignited a debate on freedom. of speech. thank you for being with us. it's a remarkable book for your story, and the cartoons and protest. you went broader and spoke to other people who have been

victimized by those that don't share your view on free speech, one you mentioned was salman rushdie. you left me with the impression that limiting speech in any fashion sends you down a slippery slope. once you decide you are not free to say what you want to say, it's a matter of how unfree you are. you referred to the united states was an ideal, a gold standard. >> i'm a little more critical these days of united states. >> we have limb taghtss. >> and we do in europe. i don't believe in unlimited free speech. incitement to violence - people should not say kill the muslims, i'm in favour of other limitations, but i think the friend now is that people are playing the offense card in

order to shut down speech they dent like. that is a slippery slope. what regularly in the united states troubles you. it's more a social control of speech. in fact, i still believe that the united states has the best possible protection of free speech in the world. it's just that people are not always pushing the limits of speech. because of commercial pressure, there is a lot of things - there are a lot of things that people do not say out of fear what might happen to them if they say it. not in terms of the law, but in terms of community. >> let me ask you this. your prescription in europe, you are critical of europe in your book. when someone says something offensive. you are saying perhaps we should be sent to insensitivity string,

do you think we -- training, do you think we should be better or are you saying it provocatively? >> there's a sense of irony, but it's a way of saying people too easily take offense. you can exercise social control by playing the offense card. if you say i'm offended by what you say, it's not tolerance. >> is to my right to be offended as it is your right to say what you want to say. are our rights equal. >> you have a right to be offended in the sense that this is my experience, but you don't have a right to shut others speech down by playing the offense card. you can count on it and say i think you are stupid, it's offensive what you are saying, i don't like it. you are not trying to ban it or use violence to shut is down. that's what tolerance is. one of the reasons you used in defense of publishing the

cartoons much prophet muhammad, you said in denmark there's a rich history of satire and making fun of people it was the welcome wagon for the muslims. saying you are part of the party. it's a weird welcome wagon. >> of course, but there's a bit of irony in saying that, but you could say publishing the cartoons is a way to integrate muslims into satire, they should not accept more, less but should be willing to accept the same that every other group in our society. in that is a recognition that you are part of the family. you are here to say we do not free you as foreigners, outsiders. but we treat you as every other group you are not as worried as legal limitations on free speech in the united states, you agree to some, on obscenity and child important og rahhy.

>> ot ob -- pornography. not obscenity, but child pornography. >> there are good societal reasons to be polite, for you and i to have a polite conversation about this. we can achieve a bit by doing so. what is the benefit societally of provocation. >> provocation, i don't know. the point is i agree with you. i try to talk in a polite way to you recollects i like when people talk to me. the problem is scientists growing more and more diverse. you will have people with different beliefs, deeply held beliefs that will crash. one man's hate speech is another man's poetry. what is sacred for one man is blasphemy for another.

in order to give space to ethnicity and culture, you need more speech, more freedom of expression. but if you take provocation, i mean, throughout history, provocations have played, you know, very positive roles, but in some cases maybe negative. >> what if you have the right to the free speech, as you did in denmark when you published the cartoons, but the net result was some lost their lives, who may not if not having been provoked by the cartoons. i understand that you don't believe the provocation is something that you should be blamed for. if people take offense to something and behave in an unacceptable way and use violence, that is not your problem. what is the game. what did provocation get you, it didn't change the laws in denmark that are liberal about speech. >> i think, in fact, we were in

for this clash somehow sooner or late. if you look at the cartoon crisis, i think it has promoted cross-cultural religion in denmark. the koran was the best seller. we had court cases, we were taken to court by muslim communities, and one of the leaders of the muslim community after the court case said i thought it was a criminal offense in denmark, now i acknowledge that that is not the case. >> you didn't break laws. didn't the 200 people have a right not to be murdered? >> if you take the people killed, the vast majority were killed in nigeria, and christians and muslims have been killing one another before the khartoum crisis and after. i think, in fact, the number of

victims were limited. if you look at the places where people were killed, there's an interesting thing. all the victims are in countries where there was no freedom of expression. it was in countries where you don't have the right to publish the cartoons. >> do you think they'll change their blind because fleming rose wrote a book about it - i hear you. let's look at some of the worst examples. let's look at people in this world who don't take an approach of freedom of speech. what's the end game. if you do it, do you think i.s.i.l. would say "wow, we have been wrong all along", still, someone will take offense, what is the end game.

what does victory look like to you. >> cartoons were published for a european audience. one of the things i learnt through the crisis and debate is we live in a globalized world. information travels due to digital technology, and we have migration. society is more and more diverse. because of this global days, we have it going on about the limits. you can put it the other way, should we in denmark bring our laws in accordance with saudi arabia because they don't like what is in the newspaper. you have this debate going on. i do not intend to convince i.s.i.s. that it is a good thing to publish cartoons of prophet

muhammad, but i think there will may be muslims, the most important minority, who would like to practice faith in another way. who are not offended by cartoons, women that would like to make choices about spouse, education, gay people that would like to live a normal life. for them, this is important, that we protect the life of the individual, not the group. >> thank you for talking to us. "third rail" is next. >> in this country borders matter. sovereignty matters. we are a nation of laws. >> you didn't break the law, your parents broke the law. you are not allowed access to same education as everyone around you.

>> yes. a al jazeera america's... >> today they will be arrested. >>they're firing canisters of gas at us. >> we have to get out of here.

welcome back to third rail. students as young as those in elementary school are taught to fight gunmen from canned goods to pencils. is that a good idea. would you want your child to physically confront an armed intruder at school. >> with all the shootings going on. >> doing anything is better than nothing. >> no plan, and chances of

surviving drop dramatically. >> i'm not sure a 5 to 7 top 9-year-old child has capacity to choose the right time to take access. >> let's bring in the panel. a former democratic nominee for congress, and a u.n.i.c.e.f. ambassador for nine years. kerry sheffield a contributor for forbes. and jessica proud, a republican strategist and partner in the november team, political marketing and consultant term we teach children to deal with air raids, earthquakes - with all the school shooting does it make sense? >> to some extent it does. we want the kids to be prepared and know there is evil in the world. it's tragic that it comes to this. it's better for a student to know what to expect and know how

to react. some sort of training happens in most schools. 88% of schools had plans in face. 70% drills, not necessarily about shooting, but thou lock down a -- how do lock down a school. wonder g there's fear-mongering. americans have a one in eight chance of dying by firearm. that's a third of the risk. >> it's insane to think you'll give a kid a can of peas and three it at an armed gunmen. >> there's a role for training, the onus should be on school administrators, and it's a better opportunity to but law enforcement in schools. >> you talk about in world war ii, we train kids to prepare themselves against air raids. one thing we do as a country is preventing air raids from being a threat. children should be responsible

for the fact that we reined ours to living in a country. >> congress is saying you know what, this is how we live these days. there is in an argument about letting teachers be armed. >> you arm a teacher, who is the first tart. >> i want to make sure the teachers are safe. you can't put a gun in a locked box and assume teachers will grab it. hypothetically. i know that teachers have guns. the first person i shoot is a teacher. we are not making them prepared, we are making them targets. >> we have to point out that most school shootings, public violence, happens in gun free zones. if you want gun control, it's

not working. we need beater mental health care. they've been following gun free zones. cops don't carry guns in england. those countries have lower gun crime than the united states. >> i would suggest not arming law enforcement. >> it goes into - it's a different thing. teachers go into the profession. owning and operating a firearm is a personal decision. it's not fair to ask teachers to take it on. why can't we put law enforcement in every school. >> that's a weird sign of the times, the fact that we accepted the facts there there's a police officer. >> you did that. i went to schools where it was

heavy minority, and we had to wait for an sour to get into schools. we have history about shootings, it's happening in the suburbs where there's white people. it's happened for 50 years. i don't get the black lives matter. people are upset that we are not enforcing gun control. it's double speak that is troubling. we have different arguments to why we have law enforcement in the school. there's incidents that you mentioned growing up, where the law enforcement disperse are there to enforce laws. what we talk about is someone to protect the school from the

outside. i don't want my kid responsible to protect his 7-year-old self. it's interesting to thing we have to think about this. another topic, the democratic debate renewed talk. it's taking hold about undocumented immigrants and college. >> you believe that undocumented immigrants should get instate college tuition. >> if the states agree we want them to do the same. >> give the young people the opportunity to be givers, rather than takers. they are violating the law. >> we don't blame children for what the parents have done. >> it's about fundamental fairness. it needs to stop. >> the idea of in-state tuition, you live in a state and take taxes. if you didn't pay taxes, you pay more money. if you are illegal and you pay taxes, a lot of states in

america that don't have income tax, you pay as much as anyone else, why shouldn't you get the right. >> i think it should be merit based. if you are an illegal student. you score in the top 10th percentile. you'll be to the point that governor perry was taking. you'll be giving back. in this country borders and sovereignty matters. >> you are saying for people that are not undocumented. if they are high performers, you are saying they should get that. >> we should discriminate wean a high school and a local immigrant. if we want to be the beacon of innovation, we kill everyone else. there's no silicon valley. we allow immigrants.

it's successful, that's never been the case. >> it may be a college - they do have to apply to get accepted. you can't say you are a taxpayer, and you get to go to school. you are paying property tax. because your parents broke the law, and you didn't break the law, you are not allowed access to same education. >> i don't have a problem with it. as long as it doesn't take away from the pot of north american sunts. if a lot of american students... >> it does by definition. >> it's a finite pot. >> the school needs money. it should be discussed in a larger comprehensive immigration

reform. let me talk about the agreementers. time to go to ledge. >> for instate tuition, fine, i don't think they should qualify. a lot of american students don't have access to that money, because it's a finite pot. i don't think it's fair to say to an american that you can't have that money. >> it's interesting. there's a finite spot. whether it's grant money or a school. >> it needs to be part of a larger discussion. we are a nation of laws. >> i think there's a misconception when there's an immigration argument. people here illegally are paying taxes, sales tax, buying from the business, restaurant and contributing to the economy. many of them have paid federal income tax. >> i don't disagree with you.

we can't imply, the pot is finite. but it is filled by 11 people. texas does better than a lot of places. in state tuition is 7,500 a year. nonresident tuition, if you charge undocumented immigrants, it's 19,000. it's more than double. you are saying, if you are not prepared to give instate tuition, you may be putting someone out of the chance of going to college. >> not all have the same formula. texas and north carolina is similar. community college are places you need to go. they have structures where a student left. >> i'll leave it, we have consensus, i better end the show. thank you all for your time.

before we go i want to share this thought. the i.s.i.l. killers that struck paris showed a contempt for

human life in liberal values, taking credit for the attacks, i.s.i.l. said its killers were defending the territory it controls and islam. the attacks have been condemned by government and clerics across the middle east, including saudi arabia, not known for liberal values, and given their execution rate, a country not concerned with the value of human life. after paris, saudi arabia religious scholars called the attacks contrary to the values of mercy that islam brought to the world. interesting, if valuables of mercy are important to the saudi arabiaize, they don't seem to apply them at home. last week a poet was sentenced to death for supposedly ops islam. it was said that he posted a

video showing religious police beating a man in public. it was claimed he distributed poems of atheism. he denounced and said he was repentant to god. he said poems were about being a refugee is philosophical issues. i used the opportunity to talk about clash of values. the case is an opportunity for saudi authorities to show the world their ultra conservative brand of islam is incompatible with the i.s.i.l. killers they condemn ed. saudi officials and religious scholars standing up tore tolerance and the value of human life, that would really be third rail.

announcer: this is al jazeera. hello, welcome to the al jazeera newshour, live from our hours in doha. i'm elizabeth puranam, coming up in the next 60 minutes - the e.u. agrees to give turkey billions in aid to limit the flow of refugees into europe. more than 40 people killed in syria after air strikes in idlib. russia is being blamed. >> pope francis calls for peace and forgiveness as h