Definitely. I think it could be the first tragedy that, in terms of impact on the collective psyche, is similar to 9/11 for a lot of people worldwide, despite being far less spectacular and of a wholly different scale. I might be mistaken - I haven't read nearly everything - but it doesn't seem to be perceived that way as much by Americans and Anglo-Canadians and I bet it's got a lot to do with the lukewarm way your media covered the event, visibly uncomfortable with Charlie Hebdo, that's been very different from much of the rest of the western world's, as it's been remarked on a lot here, in Europe and even by The Economist.

Charlie Hebdo has been a bit mis- or at least incompletely represented in the American media (the few ones I've read, so Washington Post, CNN, LA Times, and the New York Times on that issue was especially full of little factual mistakes etc), in part because of the language barrier I guess and the obvious lack of familiarity of your journalists with that newspaper, though most made laudable efforts to try to place it in the proper cultural context. It's not just cartoons, there's a lot of texts and opinion pieces in Charlie. They're a less intellectual, more daring and more virulent (but not necessarily more potent) Canard Enchaîné.

They do not really poke fun at Islam as such. They satirize pretty viciously Islamists, like they denounce, and in their cartoons ridicule, all forms of extremism and fundamentalism, be it social/cultural, political or religious. "Poking Fun" isn't their first mission either - it's a mean to an end for a newspaper that's above all a militant one.

They push "the right to criticize, denounce, mock or disrespect whoever or whatever holds power" to the limits of freedom of expression. It's crude at times, often puerile, basely sexual and/or scatological - all things that are inherent to genuine satire (and without which it becomes a sanitized, "politically correct" ersatz - The Onion-style, funny but with very little of the potency) . They're a lot the children of Rabelais and Swift in this, and of course of all the pamphlétaires of the ancient-régime and the French Revolution, and of Reynard the Fox when it comes to that. It's a intrinsic part of French culture). To almost all of what they publish there's a second degree that place things in context and make you think, but they've always walked a very dangerous thin line with that, where if you take their stuff at face value - and a whole lot of people do - it appears to be hateful, racist, intolerant etc. A lot of the controversies and scandals with Charlie arose from people taking their stuff at face value. This is what the Imams (but at other times also Rabbins, Catholic organisations, and some politicians) who sued Charlie for racism, hateful speech, libel etc. have done, but the Courts rejected all their claims, finding the second degree obvious enough - and so was the fact they attacked fundamentalism, not Islam.

Religion is also not the favourite topic of Charlie Hebdo. French and European politics, intolerance and the extreme right in Europe, economy, ecology, human rights are. Religion is a second-tier topic, but it's attracted most of the spotlight.

Hm... I can't agree with that. The French Left isn't the North American Left, and not really as plagued with "political correctness". There was nothing hypocritical about the gesture, nor was there even really a left-right division in the reactions (it was with Le Pen and the FN playing martyr vs. the PS that the first cracks in national unity appeared).. A very great deal of public figures in France dislike Charlie Hebdo and have spoken publicly against some of its actions in the past, but don't forget that's still the country of Voltaire. For a great deal of French, the right to denounce and mock those in power is seen as nearly sacred, and cherished a bit the same way as the Second Amendment is by some Americans, a way to keep the powerful in check should they turn stupid or to tyranny. The right to criticize and speak up freely against religion is also deeply ingrained in the French psyche.

To the average Frenchman, this was seen quite viscerally as a direct attack against the Liberty pillar of the Republic, and part of their answer to that is this massive display of Fraternity. It's really no surprise why they were so numerous in the streets each night since the tragedy, and I doubt it's over. Tomorrow's marches will no doubt be very impressive.

"Je suis Charlie" is a bit misunderstood, I think. That's not meant as a profession of adherence to the ideas of Charlie Hebdo (or a very great deal of people would be hypocritical indeed to use it) nor a way to claim the courage of the CH journalists. It's first and above all a republican ralliement cry for freedom of speech/freedom of press, and a show of defiance: you won't take our freedom of speech, and above all a way to tell the terrorists that if they want to take the freedoms which are the pillars of our democracies and way or life from us, they'll have to do much worse than kill a few journalists, they'll have to kill us all.

In the end, it's very similar to the resilient/defying reactions of New Yorkers and Americans in the aftermath of 9/11, just expressed through different means.

Another aspect of it is that in France Charlie Hebdo is more than just Charlie Hebdo, it's a cultural icon. Cabu in particular was a beloved figure, who aside form his work in newspapers/magazines was also a star of children TV for many years. Both him and Wolinsky also worked for many other magazines, and published bandes dessinées.

For the slightly older people, it's also emotional because CH was in a symbolic way the last remnant of May 68, which now disappears very suddenly.

To a good extent I tend to agree with you, if not about all the specifics.

This opinion piece published in Marianne (in French, of course) will probably interest you as it deals with a lot of your arguments.

For the philosopher Abdennour Bidar, the faithfuls mustn't stop themselves at denouncing the terrorist barbarity to better elude the matter of the origins of those Jihadist aberrations. In the light of the dogmas and of the political instrumentalisation which they are the object of, the muslim world must look at itself with a critical eye and engineer its own reformation.