I refer to the commentary “Practical, not ideological, approach needed on human rights” (May 1), where the writer said: “When the Charlie Hebdo tragedy occurred, I was struck by the similarity of the mode of thought between the murderers and their victims. Both held some belief so absolutely that they thought it justified anything.”
He compares the thought processes of the staff of Charlie Hebdo and the terrorists because they are both “absolute”. The difference is that one of them believes in freedom of speech — which is an inclusive belief — and the other believes that anyone who criticises their religion deserves to die. How are they similar? Which country would we rather live in? France or ISIS-controlled Syria?
The writer also did not mention that the same terrorists killed Jewish people for the crime of being Jewish. And yet he states that the rise of fascism and anti-Semitism in Europe is a result of Europe’s belief in freedom of speech. This argument has it backwards — the anti-Semites in Europe are the other absolutists.
Also, could the writer explain what is absurd about Europe refusing to submit to the Islamist demand to accept their blasphemy law regarding depictions of their prophet as something that must be respected by all, under pain of death?
This letter first appeared as a comment on TODAYonline
