auckland stadium for the service he died november 18 age 40. he was the star of the 1995 wrigley world cup because of his combinations of size, speed, and power. much more news on our website there it is on your screens, aljazeera.com. tonight free speech is the bed rock of a free society, but are there limits and would enforcing those limits threaten our freedom. should school kids be trained to fight back against gunman and my final thought on how saudi arabia is misterying a major opportunity to separate stiffly from i.s.i.l. i'm ali velshi. this is third rail. after i.s.i.l. struck paris on november 13, it called the city

of light the capital of prostitution and object scenity. the freedoms were an affront that must be punished. we have seen people willing to kill anyone who represents something that offends their deepest beliefs. one ugly example riots in 2006 that were trigged by a danish newspaper publishing cartoons of the phophetmoham med. there are peep who criticise freedom of expression 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 our free speech or do we use it to advance and hence desperately needed discourse between people living in an increasingly inter connected

world that sounds smart and sensitive, but free speech means different things in different countries. free speech should be absolute with no limits at all. who will you appoint, who will be the one who says i know exactly where the limit should be and how far it can go and i know when you've gone too far. now is the foreign editor of the newspaper. he was the editor when it published those cartoons of the prophet. he was nominated for this year's nobel peace prize. good to see you. thank you for on being with us. it's a remarkable book not just of your story and the story of the cartoons and the protests, but you went broader and spoke to other people who have been victimised by those who don't share your view on free speech.

one person you mentioned was salmon rushti. you left me with the impression that limiting speech in any fashion sends you down a slippery slope. once you've decided that you are not absolutely free to say what you want to say, then it's just a matter of how unfree you are, but you referred to the united states len ideal. almost a gold standard i'm more critical these days of the united states. we do in europe as well. of course i don't believe in unlimited free speech. i think that incitement of violence, people should not say to go out and kill muslims or people with red hair or whatever it is. i'm in favor of a few other limitations. i think the trend now is that people are playing the offence card in order to shut down speech that they don't like.

that is a slippery slope when you say you were more critical of the united states now than you were when it published the book. what's the problem some it's the social control of speech, that, in fact, i still believe that the united states has the best possible protection of free speech in the world. it's just the people are not always pushing the limits of free speech. because of social 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, not in terms of the law but in terms of community your prescription in europe, you're critical of europe in your book. when someone says something offensive, you're saying perhaps we should be sent to incensetive training. are you saying that to be provoketive or do you think we

should be better at being incensetive toward one another?

you said in denmark there's a rich history of making fun of people it was the welcome wagon to say the muslims say you were welcome. you can say that in a way publishing those cartoons was a way of integrating muslims into the danish tradition of satire. muslims should not accept more, they should not accept less, but they should be willing to accept exactly the same that every our group in other society and in that lies a recognition that you are part of the family. you are here to stay. we do not treat you as foreigners or outsiders, but every other individual and group in our society going back to your idea that you're not word about legal limitations on free speech in the united states. you have agreed to some of them on object scenity-- but on child pornography.

yes, pornography there are good societal reasons to be polite for you and i to have a polite conversation about this regardless of whether we agree with each other. we can achieve a bit by doing so. what's the benefit societally of provocation?

and culture, you need more speech, you need more freedom i think-- if you take provocation, i mean, throughout history provocations have played, you know, very positive roles, but also in some cases maybe negative what you have the right to free speech as you did in your company when you published the cartoons, but the net result of it is some people have lost their lives but would not being provoked by why your cartoons. you don't believe that the provocation that the newspaper or you should be blamed for because if somebody takes offence and behaves in an unacceptable way and uses violence that's not your problem yeah what did it get you, the provocation? it didn't change laws in denmark i think in fact we were in

for this clash somehow sooner or later and if you look at the cartoon crisis, i think it has promoted cross-cultural, cross-religious dialogue in denmark. the quaran was a best seller in denmark. we were taken to court by muslim communities and we were acquitted in all cases. one of the leaders of the muslim community after one of the court cases said, okay, i thought that this was a criminal offence in denmark but i have to acknowledge that's not the case you didn't change any laws. the point is what - didn't those 200 people a right not to be murdered?

limited, but if you look at the places where people were killed, there is an interesting thing. all the victims, the dead victims were in places where you do not have freedom of speech it's important to understand it was in countries where you did not have the right to publish those cartoons, while in countries-- to do you think they changed their mind because of whether you published cartoons? i hear you. the world is not as tolerant as what you are. let's look at people in this world who certainly don't take an approach, a freedom of speech or practice of religion. let's take i.s.i.l. for example. what's the end game here? do you think if you do enough interviews and write enough books one day i.s.i.l. is going to sit there and go, wow we were wrong all along. in the end there is someone going to find it unacceptable and may kill someone as a result. what does victory look like to you?

in a danish context for a european audience. one of the things i learned throughout this crisis and debate is that we are living in a globalised world. information travels due to digital technology and we have migration. so our society is going more and more diverse. because of this global public space, we have a struggle going on about the limits. you could also put it the other way. should we in denmark bring our laws in accordance with saudi arabia because they don't like what is being published in a danish newspaper. you had this debate going on. i do not intend to convince i.s.i.s. that is a good thing to publish cartoons on the prophet mohamed, but i think there may

be muslims within muslim communities, individuals, most important minority in the world is the individual who would like to practice an a faith in another way, who don't feel offended by cartoons, women who would like to make their own choices about spouses, education, gay people who would like to live a normal life, even though inside communities where it is being perceived as a deviant behaviour and so on and so forth. for them this debate is important, that we protect the right of the individual and not the group thanks for taking the time to talk to us about this. the third rail panel is next. in this country borderss matters, sovereignty matters. you didn't break the law. you are not allowed access to >> "inside story" takes you beyond the headlines,

beyond the quick cuts, beyond the soundbites. we're giving you a deeper dive into the stories that are making our world what it is.

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. 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 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 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. 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 >> concealed iguanas in his prosthetic leg. >> revealing the shocking lengths traffickers go. >> i've had monkeys jump out of suitcases. >> now scientists joining the fight to save endagered species. >> the more we buy, the more these animals are going to become extinct. >> tecknows' team of experts show you how the miracles of science... >> this is what innovation looks like. >>...can affect and surprise us. >> i feel like we're making an impact. >> let's do it. >> techknow, where technology meets humanity. puerto rican

puerto rican 147 heads of state gather in paris for the u.n. climate change conference. you're watching al jazeera. we will be reporting on the devastating impact of industrialisation in china's most polluted city. also ahead guilty, an israeli court convicts two israelis of murdering a palestinian teenager. a third has entered an