All week I have been puzzling over something. Why is it, when I see people saying "We are Charlie" it sets my teeth on edge? And why do I find it annoying when people tweet "We are Jewish shoppers now"?
It's really not like me to be like this. I generally tend to approve of people trying to be nice. I think that's a good thing to try to be. I am never all that worried if it is a bit, I don't know, embarrassing. And as for "We are Jewish shoppers", well, heaven knows we could do with the support.
So why do I feel as I do? I think I have worked it out.
I believe that "We are Charlie" and "We are Jewish shoppers" are controversial statements, with real political force and that not everyone who adopts them means what they are saying.
They are statements that go far beyond blandly asserting that it is a bad idea to kill cartoonists and Jews. They make claims far greater than mere sympathy for the victim against the killer.
It is absurd to argue that it is due to a few maniacs
Let's take first, "We are Charlie". On the day after the murder of the cartoonists on Paris, a man called Raif Badawi was taken to the mosque in Jeddah and after morning prayers, he was whipped.
Mr Badawi has been sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail by the Saudi courts because he "insulted Islam". His case is far from unusual. In their invaluable book Silenced, Paul Marshall and Nina Shea report dozens of cases of people being severely punished in Saudi Arabia for a similar crime.
They then tour Muslim majority countries recording the laws and punishments imposed for blasphemy and apostasy. Execution, flogging, long periods of imprisonment, forced divorces, social exclusion all await those who offend against the code.
They demonstrate that vaguely defined and arbitrary laws are one of the main tools of repression and allow governing elite to maintain power. Because you can never be sure what exactly will be found offensive, every citizen has something to fear.
After the Iranian revolution, the attempt started to internationalise the blasphemy laws.
In exactly the same way as in Muslim majority countries, the claim of offence and blasphemy can be used to exert political control, since the person making the accusation also stands as the judge about what is offensive.
What Charlie Hebdo was engaging in, therefore, was a political act. It wasn't a silly piece of provocation. And it can't be compared, as some have, to other offensive things, like trying to take the mickey out of the Holocaust. The magazine was, and is, opposing a specific, widespread and important assault on liberty. This is not just about sensibilities. It's about one of the main repressive tools in many dictatorial regimes.
It is also absurd to argue that what happened at Charlie Hebdo is the product of the view only of a few maniacs. It would be comforting, but it is naive. Look around the world. See what is happening.
And it is ridiculous to believe that there are no intellectual and political questions for mainstream Muslims to consider.
Of course there are, because at the heart of what happened is the question of blasphemy and apostasy and the correct attitude to it.
And anyone who doesn't share that view may be many things, but they aren't Charlie.
What about "We are all Jewish shoppers"?
I think, in this community, we understand why our fellow Jews were picked out by the terrorists. It is because there is a strong strand of antisemitism in, I'm sad to say, many Islamic communities. And this has found its political cause in opposition to Israel, even if opposition to Israel was not its origin.
Anyone not willing to see the strong and violent strand of antisemitism that is present in the movement against Israel is not a Jewish shopper. Most of us agree, and I certainly believe, that criticising Israel is not intrinsically antisemitic. But the fact is that many who make Israel the target for their hate are undoubtedly antisemitic.
The claim that "We are Jewish shoppers" means something. I am not convinced that everyone adopting it can see that.
