ESHAR Abdul Kareem and Dr Hojjat Ramzy appear to be very much at polar opposites in the whole Charlie Hebdo debate but in many ways they are invoking the same right.

As we report today, newsagent Mr Kareem wants to stock the controversial magazine, which this week depicts the Prophet Muhammad following the terrorist atrocity in Paris last week.

Dr Ramzy, meanwhile, was last night leading a protest against the magazine, saying that it is an extremist magazine that insults Muslims.

Both will attract supporters and critics.

They both talk about the freedom of expression and, in this instance, they are both relying on that freedom of expression that the majority of us hold so dear.

Mr Kareem has a right, as a businessman, to stock a publication that is not illegal should he feel his customers may wish to purchase it.

And Dr Ramzy and his supporters equally have a right to protest against the magazine because of their beliefs.

There has been a lot of debate about freedom of expression since the Charlie Hebdo murders but it is not something that can be conditional. It has to be an absolute, otherwise it is not a freedom.

But with that freedom comes a responsibility, and that is not to needlessly – or even deliberately – just offend certain groups for the sake of it.

The Oxford Mail steadfastly defends its right to depict the Prophet Muhammad or publish the Charlie Hebdo cover, should we wish to.

However we recognise that it would be unnecessarily provocative to do so and could not really be justified.

Freedom of expression as a right is a black and white issue in our eyes. But the responsible exercising of it has myriad shades of grey.