Geo wrote:I think many of us are anti-Muslim to some extent and the Charlie movement taps into that anti-Muslim sentiment.
Using this to go back to a key point in the CH content-related debates that appeared after the events: there is a very important difference between something being anti-muslim or being anti-Islam (more precisely: against certain fundamentalist takes on Islam, which demand that people have to define themselves in religious terms, as Olivier Tonneau perfectly put it).
Putting a false equivalence between the two (as some media did, and then it has gone ballistic in debates) is the favourite tool of a moral relativist.
Another false equivalence, used by the islamic fundamentalists themselves, is between something mocking aspects of a/any religion and something mocking historic facts. When the Danish cartoons were published, middle-eastern media started to publish things mocking the Holocaust. In their mind, the two things were equivalent... intentionally committing or genuinely missing the enormous fallacy.
Curiously, on the CH anti-semitic debacle, the problem came from the very fact that it crossed the line into attacking someone's identity/roots and not the person's personal convictions/belief system. Big difference there, but most of the rhetoric that unfolded after the event has mixed these two as if they were (logically, or even in legal terms) equivalent...
Look at French press like Minute, Valeurs Actuelles, as referenced by Tonneau, too... they are key examples of press that massages together muslims with islam fundamentalists, arabs with muslims, and this press is more racist and does more damage than CH that was consistently ridiculing Le Pen, various religions' fundamentalist aberrations, politicians' corruption etc.
So just a little note on the fact that, in context, one understands what some occurrence of the expression "anti-muslim" wants to say, however in general it is extremely different from anti-islamist stance.