The policeman's name was Ahmed Merabet.

Geez, you'd like it if the hypocrites stood their ground and came out of the closet against free speech? I found it heartwarming, sorry. What's the upside for them to do this, really? Isn't it more that they are expressing an admiration for an ideal that they themselves do not feel they can follow fully yet? Or you think all of those leaders to trying to get French votes or to anger conservative Muslims or what? Don't you like it when people of mixed beliefs and politics stand together for something for at least a day?

This is one of my favorite commercials of all times,it was made in response to 9/11:

I found that world leader shtick in Paris to be nearly as heartwarming. and I often practice the heights of cynicism. But I don't see much to be cynical about here. You would rather they be warring with each other, or even just yelling at each other? What's bad about Netanyahu stopping his threatening posture for once? What's wrong with other leaders who support censorship bowing at an altar of freedom for a day? One day is better than nothing. Showing their face to the world so that any later hypocrisy will just show much more clearly.

Thanks for these comments and links. Bill Maher had his show cancelled for the relatively obvious observation that flying a kamikaze plane to death isn't exactly the prime definition of "cowardly".

And he picked up on the cowardice or apathetic war-mongering of a superpower lobbing "smart" weapons from afar that seem to kill enough civilians to stir doubt in thinking men - but there are few thinking men these days in our marketing-infused foreign policy.

(ironically Maher's picked up on lobbing over-generalized attacks on Islam, perhaps wanting to become the Christopher Hitchens heir apparent of this new gilded age)

Iraq made the observation that the exceptional Paris death toll was less than the typical daily slaughter in Iraq - but we proclaimed our "surge" worked, and so there must be peace in Babylon.

The fear of saying something racist or anti-semitic or any other societal piccadillos is a pretty horrifying Sword of Damocles hanging over every tongue in the "free world" - have a drink too many and your career is over, as John Galliano found out insulting some annoying women pestering him from the next table - oops, ran afoul of those French hate-crime laws and lost his gig at Dior (he pleaded the Judy Garland defense, addicted to prescription drugs within the studio machinery, and his actual fine was a pittance.

But still, if I'm going to insult someone, how do I do it if not insulting their race, religion, nationality, genetic forebears, intelligence, physical attributes, and what-not? because most people aren't horrified by their own unique glaring stupidity, it's necessary to invoke analogies based on attributes that insult by association - but we're supposed to unilaterally disarm in the face of creeping (extremely selective) correctness? what do I do with my book of 1000 redneck jokes, burn it? or just let it mold in the basement/bottom drawer with my kiddie porn collection? life is so unfair.

Joking aside, it's rather bizarre twist for the nation that insisted overthrowing the rather post-9/11 reformed Qaddafi government through some invoking of the rights to protest in Benghazi, and then sits twiddling thumbs at the bloody chaos that's consumed Libya since - and there's a shrieking silence about the 1 million Algerian Muslims that the French killed in trying to avoid losing their colony (that they insisted wasn't, was an integral part of France for 150 years). For some reason, forgetting the holocaust is a crime but forgetting your own historical massive bloody atrocities is de rigeur. (I first heard this analogy when French generals were proclaiming Israeli excesses in Fallujah as the worst humanitarian abuse in their lifetime - an absurd blind assertion from a country famed for philosophical intellects)

Anyway, this can go on and on. Yes, I'm concerned that people will have too much fear to do normal things in life or say opinions as part of discussions that should illuminate issues. Someone tried to turn this into an issue of classist warfare, but everyone in the EU can still get their biting humor across (if they tiptoe around those holocaust laws which ain't that tough), while the US habit of entrapping Muslims at kebab joints and prosecuting online postings as promoting terror is a bit harder to skip around. Maybe Mr. Nobel Peace Prize Obama shouldn't have been invited to the Paris fete (whether Netanyahu's goading of the Islamic community and bloody attacks on civilians should have been rewarded with a front-line presence is another issue)

Still, I got a heart-skip of joy when Hezbollah came out and forecefully asserted that gross violence in the name of Islam does more to insult the prophet than a few drawings - kind of like when the IRA and Qaddafi quickly took new reality-infused turns post-9/11. Hopefully aside from all the posturing among the doubtful hypocritical participants, there will be at least some real sea change among primary actors. Sadly, it won't be our own government, which is pushing its doubtful claim of North Korean responsibility for Sony hacks as a way to put more intrusive measures on the internet. Maybe as we did 250 years ago, we'll have to look to France for some philosophical inspiration, flawed as the French are.

Muslims should simply ignore insults to their faith, the Quran says ~

subheading of Mustafa Akyol's op-ed for the New York Times Jan. 14, 2015

Excerpt:

Just “do not sit with them” — that is the response the Quran suggests for mockery. Not violence. Not even censorship.

So for Lulu, what that means is you don't have to be Charlie if you don't want to. But you shouldn't be looking for revenge on Charlie, either, you should tolerate him.