>You're understanding of french values and society, especially of Laïcité [1], couldn't be farther from the trust.

My understanding of the french values is based on evidence, on the things I see and experience and based on the account of french citizens, reports and documented events throughout history.

> Most french people take strongly to "Liberté Égalité Fraternité", and painting the whole country as hostile to minorities is extremely ignorant.

Nothing but lip service, the evidence and daily realities paint a different picture. Again, you are just making assertions without substantiating them, name calling isn't making an argument. And yes, french society as I and many others have experienced is hostile to minorities and patronising on top of that. So you are the one who is extremely ignorant and have the audacity to project your own ignorance on others.

>It is totally false to say that french freedom of speech permits to "constantly harass minorities by mocking them".

Good, because I didn't say that it does permit it, I said that you do it under the guise of freedom of speech, totally different, among other bogus excuses.

>However, satyre of ideas/symbols like religions and prophets is not the same thing as mocking people, and is an integral part of what we call laïcité.

Spare me the hair splitting, insulting and mocking people's integral part of their identity is insulting them too.
Furthermore there were cases when Charlie Hebdo Journalist was fired for being 'anti-semitic', while similar attacks on muslims were/are tolerated. There is clear cut islamophobia in french society and unfair application of laws regarding them. Don't insult people's intelligence with your weak vapid justifications.

> You are missing the point that people, in their individuality as human beings, deserve respect but abstract concepts do not.

No, you are missing the point, the amount of harassment under the guise of 'satire' with which secular elites constantly bully and harass minorities is what made french society so polarised and toxic to begin with:

"What the Charlie Hebdo caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad achieved was "not satire," and what they provoked was not "ideas," Finkelstein said.

Satire is when one directs it either at oneself, causes his or her people to think twice about what they are doing and saying, or directs it at people who have power and privilege, he said.

"But when somebody is down and out, desperate, destitute, when you mock them, when you mock a homeless person, that is not satire," Finkelstein said.

"That is, I give you the word, sadism. There’s a very big difference between satire and sadism. Charlie Hebdo is sadism. It’s not satire"

The "desperate and despised people" of today are Muslims, he said, considering the number of Muslim countries racked by death and destruction as in the case of Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen.

"So, two despairing and desperate young men act out their despair and desperation against this political pornography no different than Der Stürmer, who in the midst of all of this death and destruction decide its somehow noble to degrade, demean, humiliate and insult the people. I’m sorry, maybe it is very politically incorrect. I have no sympathy for [the staff of Charlie Hebdo]. Should they have been killed? Of course not. But of course, Streicher shouldn’t have been hung. I don’t hear that from many people," said Finkelstein.

Streicher was among those who stood trial on charges at Nürnberg, following World War II. He was hung for those cartoons.

Finkelstein said some might argue that they have the right to mock even desperate and destitute people, and they probably have this right, he said, "But you also have the right to say 'I don’t want to put it in my magazine ... When you put it in, you are taking responsibility for it."

Finkelstein compared the controversial Charlie Hebdo caricatures to the "fighting words," doctrine, a category of speech penalized under American jurisprudence."