dy should offend their beliefs. The right to blasphemy should exist but only in theory.” He continued: “The line separating these two positions is perilously thin. The Muslim radical argues that the ban on blasphemy is morally right and should be followed; the Western liberal insists it is morally wrong but should be followed. Theoretical distinctions aside, both positions yield an identical outcome.”
It has been said often before, but in the aftermath of the two Parisian attacks, it bears repeating—both Islamists and their ostensibly secular defenders must be resisted. They must understand that the defense of universal human rights is not a provocation, much less a “phobia,” but a moral obligation…
Well yes, it's just as well to get this message across loud and clear, and as often as possible.
My sense is though that this time there's been not much in the way of push back against the general horror of Paty's killing. After the Charlie Hebdo killings, many a progressive voice was raised, not so much against the killers, but against the ghastly Islamophobia of the satirical magazine who, basically, had it coming. This time, though we've seen the predictable reactions of some Muslim commentators in the Middle East – and indeed closer to home – there hasn't been much if anything that I've seen comparable to the Charlie Hebdo left hand-wringing. Maybe I've missed it, but I've seen nothing yet from the usual progressive quarters suggesting that, though of course they condemn the killing, nevertheless Paty was asking for it by showing those cartoons.
We know in fact that Paty was very careful, and suggested that anyone likely to be offended should leave the classroom. There's nothing to get hold of here, however much people might want to show how much their sympathies lie with the oppressed underdogs of a racist French society. This was an act of pure unprovoked evil that defies anyone to respond except with horror and total condemnation.
Leave a Reply