I have yet to see one of those major voices who, in the first days after last week's Paris attacks, obviously based on having seen a small selection of online jpgs, loudly stated that Charlie Hebdo was a fundamentally racist and islamophobic publication to actively concede to the evidence produced that – minimum – proved that CH, even if one still considered them racist, at least also had a substantial record for incessantly attacking the rising French far right, the mayor voice of anti-immigration in France.
Instead of that concession, many of them do two things: they either completely ignore the evidence and just go on as if nothing happened; or they first outright reject the evidence produced in a quick manner and second change subject, screaming told you so in response to the arrest of Dieudonné.
I.e. they change subject from whether CH is racist to whether France has double standards on free speech - again a twisted form of victim-blaming, as if anyone in their right mind, least CH, had ever considered the French power elite impeccably virtuous in this regard, and as if CH somehow inappropriately benefitted from that double standard (wow what a benefit to be killed for), which ironically corresponds with CH having called out the French power elite for it in the past (for example in response to Chirac being against the hijab in 2004, but for preventing the juridical system from investigating Alain Juppé).
Glenn Greenwald (https://firstlook.org/…/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-m…/) for example, reducing the ones who disagree with the CH-is-racist-mantra to "one French leftist" (http://blogs.mediapart.fr/…/charlie-hebdo-letter-my-british…), while referring them to one single letter by a former CH employee (http://posthypnotic.randomstatic.net/…/Charlie_Hebdo_articl…) from December 2013 (i.e. a month before the killings) who a) well might have an axe to grind with former colleagues b) weirdly lists as the first major example of CH's alleged outrageous examples of racism one that is by ASSOCIATION (an article in CH ABOUT a Dutch cartoonist); another example is calling them out for a hoax reportage about 'sex jihadists' in Syria (which chillingly seems to have foreseen by a few weeks what actually then WAS reported as factually happening in Syria to thousands of Yazidi women).
That said I do think that many of Tignous's drawings have a racist lean; and Wolinski's old boy sauciness was often, not always, tediously sexist (but do I need to add there are many others still alive that deserve so much more to be called out for much bigger crimes?). I do find myself defending a publication that I actually have no "truck with whatsoever", as Martha Rosler put it expressing a similar sentiment.
In any case I've seen too much evidence of CH calling out the blatant racism of France's far right to lump them all together and write them off, into their grave, as a bunch of islamophobic hate mongers (yes, blasphemous they were, which for me doesn't equal 'fear of religion', i.e. phobia, but fearlessness of religious dogma). But what does Glenn Greenwald, whom I generally admire, do, and others in his vein? They continue lumping them all together, in passing, while changing subject to France's double standards (oh wow, you did find that out?).
All of this prevents us from agreeing on what should be the minimum consensus: a) Freedom of Speech as an issue should not be left to the hypocrites and bigots in power (Saudi-Arabia sending their ambassador to the demonstration in Paris as just one blatant example; Putin and Obama at least realized the hypocrisy...) or to the far right morons trying to hijack it, and b) that we all need to ward off anti-immigration and xenophobic propaganda and state politics by forming left-to-liberal-to-even-conservative minimum consensus coalitions against it; not sectarian victim-blaming.