When I am writing this, allegedly one million people from throughout Europe and beyond are marching in Paris under the banners “Je suis Charlie” to show their solidarity with the assassinated five cartoonists of the satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo” (and seven others) who published material highly offensive to Muslims. The names and photos of the five are splashed over all media in support of “the right to offend” as part of our Western values. So be it.

However, very little is being said about the four Jewish victims - Yohan Cohen (22), Yoav Hattab (21), Philippe Braham (40s), Francois-Michel Saada (60) - who just happened to be in the kosher shop when another gunman - related to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist brothers - took them (and eight others) as hostages with the aim to blackmail the police into letting escape the two brothers they had encircled.

Why are the cartoonists who provoked and knowingly offended all Muslims more commemorated and celebrated than the four other victims who did not provoke anybody, and were killed only for being Jews. Also Hitler had apparently killed those who dared to publicly ridicule him, but we commemorate more those who were put to death for no other reason than just being Jews.

George,

It's difficult to be absolute with human human ethics and qualities - one often finds they're likely to be hypocritical in defending things in one sphere while attacking similar notions in another.

World leaders did commemorate the Jews who lost their lives in the Kosher supermarket siege.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-11/charlie-hebdo-world-leaders-historic-march-against-extremism/6011390

"Mr Hollande and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the Grand Synagogue of Paris after the march. Four Jews were killed in the attack on the supermarket.

Following the supermarket attack, in which the gunman Amedy Coulibaly killed four people, the synagogue closed its doors for the first time in decades.

Mr Netanyahu said he appreciated the "very firm position" taken by French leaders against "the new anti-Semitism and terrorism" in France.

"Israel is today at Europe's side, but I would like Europe to be on Israel's side too," he said.

"Those who killed and massacred Jews in a synagogue recently in Israel and those who killed Jews and journalists in Paris are part of the same global terror movement.

"We must condemn them in the same way, we must fight them in the same way."

Now I had great difficulty watching Netanyahu march in solidarity against atrocities in Paris, knowing that his forces recently spent days slaughtering around 2,000 defenceless civilians and injuring around 10,000.

I think I noticed a couple of Saudis in the leader's gathering - and Saudis aren't renowned for allowing their citizens free speech.

In the end "Charlie" doesn't just represent the people killed at the magazine - it represents the principle of democratic freedoms that we take for granted in the West.

Other religions, politicians and cultural icons were lampooned as well by the cartoonists. To imagine that any of them would use that provocation as a reason for a massacre is of course beyond the pale.

Poirot,

Thanks for straightening me. I wrote the piece at the time the rally started (Paris is 600 km from where I live). So I was under the influence of the media here that I was following almost continuously since Wednesday lunchtime, where the emphasis was practically only on the five cartoonists, much less on the other 12 victims that had nothing to do with the offending cartoons. Now I know that the huge 1.5 million rally was held on two levels - “freedom of speech” (read “right to offend”) and as commemoration of all of the 17 victims with the speeches that you quote. Probably I should have waited for my reaction until the rally finished.

Nevertheless ,what I was concerned about was that “freedom of speech” - one of our basic Western values - was presented as if including “the right to offend”. I think there are three levels to this.

On the LEGAL level, nobody wants to have laws against offending any, or specified groups of people, something like blasphemy laws used to be (although some countries have hate speech laws protecting special individuals or groups).

On the DECENCY level, I think in our civilised society one should not (unnecessarily) offend (ridicule) other people or groups. I should not be rude to my neighbour, call his deceased mother a whore or something like that, irrespective of what his reaction would be. This, in case of a Christian or Muslim, especially if uneducated, is equivalent to drawing cartoons that ridicule Jesus or Muhammad respectively, irrespective of the reaction one could expect.

On the PRACTICAL level, Europe is going to have a stronger and stronger Muslim population whether we like it or not. It is going to be hard for them to integrate into a culture that considers as one of its basic rights to ridicule what is most sacred to them.

As the rally showed, everybody - Christian, Jew, Muslims or areligious - was abhorred and marched against terror. But I still think the three levels of thinking about offence, especially the last two, should be carefully considered.

Yes, George, I do take your points.

And yes, a sizable proportion of Europe is Muslim - and that will only grow over time.

I've given this some thought, because contributing to this forum I've had occasion to "spit chips" when something some other poster has insinuated has riled me.

I'm thinking that if you go up to someone's face and insult them - or intervene in a conversation (whether it be online or in real life) then you are shoving (to use a crude term) your insult into their face, so to speak.

But what of things designed for a wider audience - things that one must "seek out" in order to imbibe them and then become offended?

Also a country may allow such things to be said, but society abounds with smaller sub-forums such as churches, schools other institutions which have their own rules...like this forum, for instance - where one accepts implicitly that an absolute freedom of speech is curtailed.

There are things I can say in public in Australia that I can't say on this forum.

In parliament one is not allowed to refer to another Member of Senator as a "liar", for example.

This whole subject opens up a can of worms.

The concept of giving offence in regard to religion is a difficult one. I disagree with what I understand of the conduct of the paper and the nature of the ongoing campaign of needling muslims (and others). Apart from the rudeness involved I suspect they played a not insignificant role in helping along the recruiters for militant causes with their attempts to cause offence.

Having said that I'm of the view that some of the beliefs that appear to be core to the muslim and christian faiths are fundamentally insulting in regard to those not of their faiths. For the most part we may choose not to take on board the insults and treat them with the contempt they deserve but the views are still there and many ar quite free in expressing them.

Christian views on the fallen nature of humanity, our sinfull nature and our deservedness of an eternity of torment are hardly expressions of tollerance or respectful of human dignity. For many believers they ar an esential part of the package of their gods plan for salvation of the undeserving by grace.

Muslims often seem very willing to express the view that by virtue of being muslim they are better people thsn non-muslims. There appear to be a range of aspects to this but I don't have the same familiarity with muslim teaching as I have with christian teaching to elaborate further. I have seen enough first hand examples to get the picture.

I don't like the nature of Charlies insults towards others, any attempt by the religious to seek limits on the ability of others to insult their religion (or figures and concepts within the religion) should be tempered by a willingness from those same religions to limit their own insults towards non believers.

R0bert

Dear George,

You wrote “Why are the cartoonists who provoked and knowingly offended all Muslims more commemorated and celebrated than the four other victims who did not provoke anybody, and were killed only for being Jews. Also Hitler had apparently killed those who dared to publicly ridicule him, but we commemorate more those who were put to death for no other reason than just being Jews.”

I don’t know that all Muslims were offended. I think some Muslims feel that anything, no matter how sacred, can be ridiculed or questioned. In Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” he apparently took material from Muslim sources. Other Muslims were offended by the same material. Other Muslims had produced the material.

A verse of the Rubaiyat by Khayyam (1048-1131), mathematician, Muslim, poet and sceptic as translated by Fitzgerald:

The Revelations of Devout and Learn'd
Who rose before us, and as Prophets burn'd,
Are all but Stories, which, awoke from Sleep,
They told their fellows, and to Sleep return'd.

Islam has a tradition of scepticism in addition to other traditions.

Possibly, those who carried banners saying “Je suis Charlie” identified themselves as standing for free speech. They might not have wanted to identify themselves as Jews. Unfortunately being a Jew is in itself provocative to a lot of people.

When the Hutus slaughtered the Tutsi in the Rwandan genocide they not only slaughtered Tutsi, but those Hutus who objected to the slaughter. Possibly in France memories of the Vichy era remain. It was not only dangerous to be a Jew but also to sympathize with Jews.

I think you are a decent, generous and thoughtful person.