Background
This is me, Francis, putting his head over the parapet. Probably not a good idea, but if you feel something is important you need to get your flags out and pin them to some kind of a mast.
The first point, which is one that needs to be returned to again and again, is that offence is taken not given. A satirical magazine published crowd baiting cartoons. You don't have to be a member of the crowd - if you aren't a reader of this magazine why care what it says? Their right to publish this magazine and put whatever legal thing they like on the cover is there - so what? Denouncing the creators of the magazine actually gives them credibility, but I bet they never thought of that. This is why I disagree with the whole no platform policy - let the idiot speak! The idiocy becomes apparent soon enough.
Problem is, outside of areas we've studied at some length, we're all idiots. But leave that to once side for now.
Forcing is what's wrong. For example, if I stood outside your mosque and waved the covers of that mag in your face you would have every right to be angry - this is where the line is crossed. On the other hand, if your imam was saying inflammatory things then I don't see why I can't stand outside and gently protest. Again - I wouldn't push the mag in your face. I'd just say that nobody made you read it. If you start claiming some absolute right to take offence then the answer is - not here, not now, those days are over.
We used to live in a society that burned witches and hung people for disagreeing with the king. At least on paper we don't any more. This is a good thing, and if you don't like it hard luck. It's a two way street, you wouldn't have been allowed to live here in those days because you wouldn't have fitted in so ... we all share the benefits of these hard won social changes, and that means we all have to be careful not to force anyone else. This is a very hard problem, but I'd rather live here and now than almost anywhere or anywhen else. Just writing this could have got me killed by a mob a few hundred years ago. If I lived in Saudi Arabia they would have beheaded me years ago for some of my mild disagreements with the way the state is run. Let's hold on to that.
Tolerance is violence in disguise
If I tolerate what you do, believe, or say then it implies I can stop you outwardly manifesting those things. You can't control what someone else thinks, but you can stop them expressing it. I choose not to exercise the violence needed to shut you up and make you look like an obedient clone of me. What a nice person I am. This is why, to some theorists, multiculturalism is sexist, racist and religionist because permission can also be withdrawn by the dominant culture, such as it is. It is contingent on everybody carrying on being nice.
It's why people get so het up when topics of sexual discrimination, race or religion are raised. This is why the ongoing discrimination against non "English" or "white" people is still an everyday reality despite all the politically correct posturing. For example, if I raise an issue that affects women disproportionately it's usually men who tweet swearwords at me - this is very amusing. Raising these topics, trying to have an honest and probably very painful discussion about them, starts to question the giving of permission and replace it with nonjudgemental ignoring of differences. We are all unintentional sexists and racists, there is a lot of unconscious judging going on, and the only way to deal with it is to talk about it when it arises. Tolerance, as given, stops these conversations. Tolerance divides us. Questioning your own automatic reactions, and being honest enough to try to change is far more difficult, and painful, than shouting people down who dare to question the false consensus. Tolerance is a tool of the oppressor, the honey on the razor's edge.
The PC agenda is violence on behalf of the oppressed to stop us talking about that oppression and trying to do something grown up about it. The oppressed don't need your permission - they want you to fucking listen and then change your behaviour, to do something about it.
You can live your life, within the law, however you choose. As long as I can live mine we can work together on things that matter - feeding our children, keeping warm, looking after the less well off in society and so on. Let us not judge each other, let us not give permission.
Easy? No. I have become extremely conscious of my own flaws, but this actually makes me judge others less often. It's also made me a lot happier because I don't compare myself any more.
Respect
This is another slippery word. The origin of the word comes from looking at someone. That is, judging how worthy they are. Again it is divisive. I was recently struck by the I am a man slogan used by native americans and people of colour when demanding equality. It's nothing to do with asking (permission again) for respect. It's a statement of fact, not judgement, not looking. It's not asking for permission.
Respect implies tolerance - be careful.
Banning is toxic
If you ban a person or organisation you give them credibility. If you call on the state to prevent, say, a fundamentalist religious leader from coming to your country to preach anti-gay dogma, or encourage a fatwa (managed to fit both in there) then you're saying it's up to the state to decide these things. You're saying that some people should have their travel restricted depending on their professed beliefs or sexuality - this is a very bad idea. It might be you next time, have you thought of that? It might be a friend of yours running from someone trying to kill them for their beliefs or sexuality - whoops!
No. If something should be defended then you must defend it, not defer it to a court or a government minister. I personally find the childish shouting down of people who have opinions you disagree with utterly abhorrent, it's violence, withdrawing permission. But showing their arguments to be flawed, that's the way to proceed. Publicly shunning, for example people turning their backs when a speech is being made, makes the point without violence.
What next
I am against censorship and banning except for material that involves children, and that stuff is illegal anyway. There are lines that shouldn't be crossed, but there are far less of them than you'd think.
I can disagree with the tenets of your religion and point out the inconsistencies, and as long as I don't shout them in your face I should be able to to so with impunity. You can do the same for me. If you ask I will tell you, and I might write them down somewhere - you don't have to read what I write.
I can challenge dangerous ideas that I think could cause a lot of harm if they are projected from a public platform. I'd rather let you make a fool of yourself than ban you - you don't need my help for that. As long as I can disagree and be as public about it it's fine.
I give you permission to not need my permission to believe what the hell you like as long as it does no harm to others.
Offence is taken not given.
I am a human.
So are you.
Move on.