ALTHOUGH the mourning in France is not yet over, the significance of recent events there is beginning to emerge. While the main focus has been on the unfolding story of human tragedy and the reaction to it, explaining it all requires a more complex narrative. It is a narrative which is familiar to us in this country.

It includes at least three possible areas of explanation: the role of religion in European society, the cultural challenges in post-imperial countries such as Britain and France and the West's inconsistent attitude towards political violence. Although there is still strong religious practice in some countries, Europe is rapidly becoming a post-Christian, secular society. In the Diocese of Down and Connor, for example, only one in five currently attend Sunday Mass.

In France, 40 per cent of people do not believe in God. Sixty years ago there were about 40,000 priests in the country. Now there are about 9,000.

However, as Christianity declines in Europe, Islam is growing. The aftermath of colonialism has created Muslim minorities in Britain (five per cent) and France (possibly up to 10 per cent). Islam (both cultural and religious) plays a huge part in the lives of these minorities, which sometimes leaves them at odds with their increasingly secular neighbours. Guidelines from the Quran, for example, suggest that Islamic humour should tell the truth, not be offensive and not contain unIslamic material. That would appear to leave little room for the French and British traditions of satire, which include organised religion among their many subjects.

It is therefore insulting to Muslims to satirise the prophet Mohammed. To depict him in human form is seen as heresy. All rather medieval, you might think, until you realise that blasphemy is still a crime in Ireland - although the government has

promised a referendum on its repeal.

The explanation of the Paris killings as mere terrorism is therefore a bit simplistic - and, in some quarters, inconsistent. Yes, it was terrorism and it was wrong, but how more wrong was it than Tony Blair's illegal

invasion of Iraq, which led to the killing of an estimated 150,000 civilians since 2003? Up to 20,000 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan since Britain and America invaded in 2001 - an unknown number by British and US forces. In May 2009, for example, 140 civilians were killed when three Afghan villages were destroyed in a US bombing raid.

Ninety three of those killed were children. Ministry of Defence figures show that the British Army has killed 186 innocent civilians in Afghanistan. The average compensation paid to the bereaved families was £3000. Terrorism is not confined to some Muslims.

We can self-righteously point out the inconsistency of a British prime minister protesting against terrorism, marching

alongside an Irish Taoiseach who has facilitated refuelling US planes flying to and from Iraq and Afghanistan. We might find less reassurance in other inconsistencies nearer home, where we have our own history of trying to silence the media.

In 1971 the Provisional IRA blew up the Daily Mirror's printing plant in Dunmurry. No one held up banners reading "I am the Daily Mirror". Journalist Jim Campbell was wounded in a UVF attack in 1984. His colleague, Martin O'Hagan was killed by loyalists in 2001. No British prime minister marched in protest.

The British government's response to its killing of civilians on Bloody Sunday was to cover it up. What was our reaction to the Kingsmill massacre or the Shankill Butchers? We are not so far removed from medieval terrorism ourselves.

One reason for the emergence from our past was the role of the media, which reported the facts and fearlessly offered comment and opinion. It is a role which still draws criticism from some in Stormont.

Cartoonists (and columnists) make little change to society. They merely offer a perspective as a reference point for others to locate and define their own opinions. Satire is one approach to comment, but there is a fine line between satire and insult. Cultural, racial and religious sensitivities can often blur that line.

Some, like the producers of Charlie Hebdo, argue that there should be no limits to satire. Others, in this country for example, believe that the line should be drawn at a proposal to produce a satirical television series on the Irish Famine.

Every society has its own limits on freedom of speech. In the absence of universal agreement on what those limits are, one society's comment will remain another society's insult. It is a problem which will not be solved by violence.