Another sharp and persuasive defense of Charlie. Olivier Tonneau writes on MediaPart "On Charlie Hebdo: A letter to my British friends" (who are getting it wrong). Excerpts:

This being clear, the attack becomes all the more tragic and absurd: two young French Muslims of Arab descent have not assaulted the numerous extreme-right wing newspapers that exist in France (Minute, Valeurs Actuelles) who ceaselessly amalgamate Arabs, Muslims and fundamentalists, but the very newspaper that did the most to fight racism. And to me, the one question that this specific event raises is: how could these youth ever come to this level of confusion and madness? What feeds into fundamentalist fury? How can we fight it?

[...]

A friend told me that it was "the West bombing Muslim countries". I am deeply suspicious of a statement that includes two sweeping generalizations and is reminiscent of Samuel Huntington's theory of the “clash of civilizations": the western world vs. the Muslim world. The only difference between George W. Bush and a leftwing stance would be that whilst Bush sided with the western world, the leftwing activist sides with the Muslim world. But to reverse Huntington's view is a perverse way of confirming it.

A statement from the Iranian Worker-Communist Party in support of Charlie Hebdo is online in French at the Solidarité Ouvrier website. An excerpt (our translation): "To confront and stop this movement [political Islam] is the responsibility of the left, secular, atheist, free-thinking and progressive forces, who see the defense of fundamental freedoms as a principal task. Charlie Hebdo belongs to this camp."

A Turkish court on Jan. 25 ordered a ban on Facebook pages that contain materials insulting the Prophet Muhammed. The Golbasi Duty Magistrate Court ruled that Facebook would be blocked in Turkey if the order is not implemented. (Jurist) Note that Facebook recently folded to pressure from China, without even so much as a threat of legal action. This comes just as Google has been blocked in China, after failing to come to terms over blocking content. (Slate) We're watching, Facebook.

Young Tunisians on social media are extol a video of their country's Rabbi Hattab comparing the tolerant atmosphere between Jews and Muslims in Tunisia to the hostile one in France, where his son was murdered by terrorists last week. Yoav Hattab, 21, was killed while trying to overpower the gunman. A photo popular in Tunisian media shows him proudly displaying his blue-inked index finger, proof that he had voted in his country’s first democratic election following the 2011 revolution. Big ups to Israel's +972 for covering this. Few others are, because it doesn't fit into the "narrative."

Blasphemy laws are being challenged in a new global campaign launched by a coalition of humanist organisations. The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) says that in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the time is right for countries to abolish laws that protect religious sensibilities. (BBC)

Thank you, IHEU, for this courageous stance.

Is this consciously revisionist or just utterly clueless? SFGate on Jan. 13 writes about a reality-hacker in the Bay Area who is defacing anti-Islam bus ads placed by a right-wing group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative. The hacker, whose work is portrayed favorably, uses the depressing slogan "Free speech isn't a license to spread hate." But much worse, SFGate writes that the ads "feature an image of Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini, a 20th Century Palestinian Muslim leader who opposed Zionism, with the words, 'Islamic Jew-Hatred: It's In The Quran.'" Haj Amin al-Husseini AKA the Mufti of Jerusalem, who openly collaborated with the Nazis and even met with Hitler (hence the photo), lauded as anti-Zionist, and treated as if the Hitler connection were arbitrary and spurious.

It gets worse still. Even more clueless language was used by The Beat, a comics website, which picked up the story because the hacker appropriates the image of Kamala Khan AKA Ms. Marvel, the first hero of Muslim heritage in the Marvel universe. Ms. Marvel is seemingly pasted on top of the Mufti-Hitler photo, covering it up. States The Beat: "The ads make parallels between Islam with [sic] Nazism, utilizing a photo of Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini, an anti-Zionism Muslim leader..." We aren't given any context on how the  "utilized" photo came to exist! We apparently aren't supposed to ask such questions—just cheer on the hacker for use of the feel-good superhero image (if for censorious purposes).

The Beat presents some tweets on the controversy by G. Willow Wilson, Ms. Marvel's creator, who (to her credit) writes that the Islamophobes have the right to purchase bus ads, and states that "the graffiti is part of the back-and-forth of the free speech conversation." Which we would heartily agree with—if the graffiti were responding to the ad rather than blotting it out, so that viewers don't even know what is being protested. 

So once again... a demoralizing clash of conservatisms. One on hand, the ugly jingos of the American Freedom Defense Initiative. On the other, a censorious reality-hacker who would sanitize the role of the Mufti in World War II, and his clueless enablers in the press. We wish supporters of Palestine would figure it out: The more they prevaricate about the Mufti-Hitler affair, the easier it will be for Israeli propagandists to exploit it. And it should be noted that the current Mufti of Jerusalem, Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, is continuing to loan convenient propaganda assistance to Israel with his ugly indiscretions.

It is certainly an irony that the kicker on the AFDI ad is "STOP THE HATE," when it is of course spreading hate. But sweeping the Mufti-Hitler affair under the metaphorical carpet (or blocking it out with the image of a Muslim comic-book hero) is so dishonest as to be counter-productive. Just makes the forces of tolerance (and Palestinian liberation) look like we've got something to hide.

And you would also hope that comics artists and their fans would not be so enthusiastic about censorship, even if censorship of ugly propaganda by a guerilla-style freelancer.

New York's irksome Indypendent have really outdone themselves this time. Anna Polonyi offers a piece entitled "France After Charlie Hebdo: Seeking the Enemy Within," which could pass as a legitimate if not terribly insightful critique of the unfolding xenophobic police state—until the final paragraph:

It is convenient to frame the question of homegrown extremism as purely an issue of security. Recognizing it as symptomatic of more widespread systemic disenfranchisement begs the question of change, and with it responsibility: To what extent are we to blame? This is not just a question for the government. If so many were ready to say "Je suis Charlie," we can also have the courage to say "Nous sommes tous Kouachis et Coulibalys."

<sarcasm>Yes, that's just who we should be expressing solidarity with! Extremoid thugs who massacre Jews and left-wing cartoonists!</sarcasm> There is not a word here about solidarity with pro-secular and progressive forces in the Muslim world (including in France)—only a brief and dismissive mention of the boring conventional wisdom of supporting "moderate" Islam. We've been reluctant to use the much-abused "left-fascism" label, but it is becoming increasingly inevitable. All the ingredients are there: rejection of modernity; intolerance of art deemed decadent; glorification of Jew-hatred. This is just another form of fascism, mirroring that of the xenophobes Polonyi is ostensibly critiquing. Which is hardly surprising: Her presumptuous use of the pronoun "we" betrays her total identification with the oppressor.  

Given how egregious this crap is, it almost seems petty to point out that Polonyi is yet another scribbler who doesn't know what "begging the question" means.

OK, time for my belief system to be tarred by the actions of an extremist. Stephen Hicks, accused of killing three young Muslim Americans in Chapel Hill, had apparently posted about his atheist beliefs on Facebook. This affords Reza Aslan the opportunity to gripe to National Public Radio about what he calls "anti-theism." He says: "An anti-theist is a relatively new identity, and it's more than just sort of a refusal to believe in gods or spirituality; it's a sometimes virulent opposition to the very concept of belief." 

Sorry, Reza. I am an anti-theist. I am in virulent opposition to the very concept of belief in your Sky Daddy. And this Craig Hicks monster no more represents me than ISIS represents you. Muslim leaders have long been complaining about how they are unfairly blamed for extremism in the name of their beleif system. So you'd think they'd refrain from the same behavior. 

And the difference is that ISIS is an organized movement, in turn part of the larger movement of political Islam. Hicks was the proverbial lone nut. (Yes, there's plenty of violent Islamophobia out there, but usually purveyed by believers in a rival Sky Daddy, not by nonbelievers.) Yet watch all the believers jump on this in dishonest manner.

Meanwhile, presumed Muslim extremoids continue their jihad against subversive art, shooting up a cafe in Copenhagen where a public discussion was being held on "Art, Blasphemy and the Freedom of Expression." One attendee was killed. The event was organized by Lars Vilks, a Swedish artist who has faced numerous threats for caricaturing Prophet Muhammed. Hours later a synagogue in the city was shot up, leaving another dead. One suspect in the attacks was later shot by police. (Al Jazeera, Feb. 16; Al Jazeera, The Telegraph, Feb. 15)

Right, this is the big problem in the world. "Anti-theism." When will theists of all stripes stop their equivocation? Over and over we hear that they oppose the assassination of artists (gee, thanks), but also oppose the blasphemous art (as if these two things were equivalent). When will they say it clearly: Blasphemy is an inalienable right.  

Maybe we'd be willing to relax our "anti-theism" if your God weren't such an uptight asshole. Just sayin'.

Seeming to mock claims that the Chapel Hill attack was a parking dispute, hoodlums who vandalized the Islamic School of Rhode Island over the weekend helpfully scrawled 'THIS IS A HATE CRIME" on the glass door, alongside the word "PIG" and profanities dissing Mohammed and Allah. Thanks fellas, that's helpful. Hearteningly, accounts quoted Rabbi Sarah Mack, of Temple Beth-El in Providence: "I find it very upsetting. The Muslim community in Rhode Island is very open and peaceful.” (Providence Journal)

French police meanwhile announced the arrest of five youths in the defacing and damage of 300 Jewish graves in Sarre-Union, Alsace. One of the youths apparently denied it was an anti-Semitic attack. Now is he just a clueless idiot who thinks he can argue that they just attacked a Jewish cemetery arbitrarily? Or a more sophisticated idiot who thinks he can try to color it as "anti-Zionism"?

Benjamin Netanyahu of course has to once again exploit the ugliness: "This wave of attacks is expected to continue," Netanyahu told his Cabinet. "Jews deserve security in every country, but we say to our Jewish brothers and sisters, Israel is your home."

Oh, will you shut up? How dumb do you think Jews are? Obviously Jews are not safe in Israel, and Israel's crimes are one of the reasons that they aren't safe in Europe! But in another heartening sign, Netanyahu's comments won an angry response from Copenhagen's chief rabbi, Jair Melchior, who said he was "disappointed" by them.

French President Francois Hollande also repudiated Bibi: "I will not just let what was said in Israel pass, leading people to believe that Jews no longer have a place in Europe and in France in particular." Prime Minister Manuel Valls said: "A Jew who leaves France is a piece of France that is gone." More problematically, he pledged to defend French Jews against "Islamo-fascism." Reports have actually not made clear if the kids arrested in the Alsace attack are Muslims. (AFP, AP, AP)

And please don't us accuse of making excuses for anti-Semitic attacks by acknowledging context. We must again point out the twin errors that are nearly ubiquitous in commentary on the question. One is to deny the context of Israeli crimes and portray the attacks on Jews as mere arbitrary anti-Semitism. The other is to deny the anti-Semitic element, as if shooting up a synagogue or desecrating graves were a legitimate way to protest Israeli atrocities.

As we've noted before, the French have a saying, Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner—"To understand all is to forgive all." Like many French sayings, it is total bullshit.