12 Reported Murdered at Charlie Hebdo by Islamists

smacl · 16-01-2015 4:40pm

recedite wrote: »

Based on specific actions and doctrines, yes. But you have to be careful that you are not criticising the whole religious community, or even the gay community, for something that the individual may or may not espouse.

I think you can quite reasonably criticise a community by their religious association, where they have been complicit in discrimination against others. Discrimination against the gay community in Ireland for example is largely a result of anachronistic Catholic dogma, perpetrated by a community that was afraid to say boo to the local parish priest. As the broader largely Catholic public began to accept that this discrimination was entirely unreasonable, it brought serious pressure to bear on the local hierarchy, who were forced to change their tune. If for example you had a gay pride march in 1950s Dublin, I'd guess those involved would have had a pretty hard time of it. Today its seen as bit of a party for all involved. Ongoing criticism, not to mention a fair amount of very camp comedy (Rocky at Harolds Cross anyone?), led a large part of the Catholic community to revise their attitudes in spite of what was being preached from the pulpit. I think moderate Islam is undergoing similar change in the west, which is causing waves for

recedite · 16-01-2015 7:28pm

smacl wrote: »

Discrimination against the gay community in Ireland for example is largely a result of anachronistic Catholic dogma, perpetrated by a community that was afraid to say boo to the local parish priest. As the broader largely Catholic public began to accept that this discrimination was entirely unreasonable, it brought serious pressure to bear on the local hierarchy, who were forced to change their tune.

Well this exactly what I mean, the specific doctrine should be ridiculed, not the broader community. And that causes the broader community to stop identifying with the doctrine that they previously accepted without really thinking about it.

You have listed two separate communities above; "the obedient catholics" and "the broader catholic public" and you seem to be saying it is OK to ridicule the former but not the latter.
If you mean religious fundamentalists should be ridiculed, on the basis that the person is indistinguishable from the idea, then fair enough, although it does go against what you said earlier about criticising the religion and not the person. But that is largely because the person themselves has allowed themselves, by submitting in an unquestioning way to all the doctrines, to be conflated with the religion.
In this case, ridicule and offense is probably justifiable, although not an actual incitement to hatred.

stevejazzx · 16-01-2015 7:50pm

robindch wrote: »

In an ideal world, populated with careful, educated who come to conclusions following rational analysis, yes, that's no doubt the case.

However, I don't believe may or perhaps even most people come to their conclusions that way. Witness how - to take my current favourite example - a large segment of Russia's population, even educated people with access to primary sources and reliable information, has been radicalized over the last year by a wall of propaganda to believe the most juvenile of paranoid, nationalist conspiracy theories.

You could have, if you approached it rationally used Europe or the States to portray the very same idea unless you think that it is somehow possible to be occupying a propaganda free space here in the West. If that's the case then I very much think you may have defeated your own sentiment.

Hotblack Desiato · 16-01-2015 11:15pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Judaism is not a race either, but we don't quibble about whether antisemitic speech can properly be called "racist" or not.

Judaism is not a race, but the Jewish people are, and anti-semitism can be an attack on either or both. The holocaust was an attack on Jews as a race not as a religion, atheists and Christians who were Jewish by descent were murdered just the same.

Really it's just a cheap debating tactic to deploy the "RACIST!!1!" card against criticism of any religion. If you think religion should be shielded from criticism then just say so instead of disingenuously deploying the racist card.

That doesn't make the moral or political issues raised by antisemitic or islamophobic speech go away.

Antisemitic speech in the sense of criticism of the religion of Judaism is perfectly fine. But one needs to be clear that one is not simply attacking Jews as a race.

Antiislamic speech in the sense of criticism of the religion of Islam is perfectly fine. There is no Muslim race so there can be no confusion here.

Valid criticism of Islam is not Islamophobia and it is not racist.

To avoid verbiage, can we agree that for the purposes of this discussion "racist" can be taken as a shorthand for "racist, antisemitic, islamophobic, homophobic, sexist or otherwise expressing hatred of a group defined by ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, belief or lack of belief, age, disability, etc?"

No, absolutely we cannot agree that. You're just using it to try and shield religion again.

But you're not saying that caricatures cannot be racist in the sense just mentioned, surely?

That's a pretty damn weak attempt at a strawman. No I'm not saying they cannot be, but that they are not in this case, unless you have evidence to the contrary which I invited you to provide?

Again, would that be your response to antisemitic speech? Or homophobic speech? Would it be your response to the islamist preachers and the right-wing nutcases that BuilderPlumber mentioned?

If one is descended from Jews one does not have a choice whether to be ethnically Jewish.
If one is homosexual or black or white then one doesn't have a choice about that either.

The religion one chooses to follow, on the other hand, is a belief - an idea - and all beliefs and all ideas should and indeed must be strongly questioned.

However incitement to hatred and/or violence cannot be condoned, whether on the basis of an innate quality or on the basis of a belief.

If it is, fine.

The alternative is that someone takes the view "I am the censor, I am not at risk of moral pollution by this idea - however those little people, the hoi polloi, cannot be allowed to have this idea cross their little minds". It is grossly offensive to treat people in this way. Similar to how the only person who was allowed to watch 'dirty' films in Ireland was the censor. If those films were 'morally corrupting' how come he was apparently resistant to them? Why didn't the RCC simply rely on its disapproval to dissuade its followers from consuming 'dirty' books and films? Why did they request the force of law as well? Why can't Charlie Hebdo publish what it wants and those who dislike it simply not look at it?

Can we really not counter argument with counter-argument rather than with censorship - if our arguments have the weight we think they have?

Shrap · 16-01-2015 11:29pm

Some very good points in there, especially how the Jews were treated as a race, not merely a group of people holding a religious belief. However, where is the crossover between race and belief?

Muslims don't consider themselves a race as they seemingly welcome converts where Judaism does not. However, there are a whole breed of people who are "culturally Islamic" in much the same way as we are "culturally Catholic" as an Irish race, and we here in A&A at least know something of the trouble and feelings that can engender when trying to separate race from belief. I wouldn't be too hard on Muslims who feel that a slur against Mohammed is a slur against them as a "race". It becomes a semantic paradox, but it's still a valid problem that needs to be addressed.

Hotblack Desiato · 16-01-2015 11:35pm

robindch wrote: »

In an ideal world, populated with careful, educated who come to conclusions following rational analysis, yes, that's no doubt the case.

However, I don't believe may or perhaps even most people come to their conclusions that way. Witness how - to take my current favourite example - a large segment of Russia's population, even educated people with access to primary sources and reliable information, has been radicalized over the last year by a wall of propaganda to believe the most juvenile of paranoid, nationalist conspiracy theories.

There is also a long history of distrust of the West though - all the authorities have to do is paint their critics as Western inspired or funded (or, worse, Nazis) and the old nationalist instincts kick in. You can't blame the people for this if it's what they've heard from the cradle. How many Russians would be aware of the Nazi-Soviet pact for instance?
People favour the comforting familiar myth over the unfamiliar, disquieting, truth all the time and we have ample evidence of this in our own country. People who speak the unwelcome truths get attacked, whether verbally or worse.

smacl wrote: »

In some ways I'd liken Charlie Hebdo to a porno mag. Not really my thing, offensive to a certain section of society, but at the same time not something I'd get upset over or seek to ban.

Mary Whitehouse thought 'filth' was offensive to her faith, no matter what she thought it didn't give her the right to censor what an entire nation could read or view. The thing about free speech is that one doesn't have to agree with the speech concerned. Allowing ideas we agree with to be uttered is easy but that's not the point (cue quotation attributed to Voltaire) .

Hotblack Desiato · 16-01-2015 11:52pm

Shrap wrote: »

Muslims don't consider themselves a race as they seemingly welcome converts where Judaism does not.

It's not just that, muslims are not a race to begin with. The most populous muslim-majority country is Indonesia. About one-third of muslims live in Africa.

However, there are a whole breed

breed ? :eek:

of people who are "culturally Islamic" in much the same way as we are "culturally Catholic" as an Irish race, and we here in A&A at least know something of the trouble and feelings that can engender when trying to separate race from belief. I wouldn't be too hard on Muslims who feel that a slur against Mohammed is a slur against them as a "race". It becomes a semantic paradox, but it's still a valid problem that needs to be addressed.

Sure, they grew up in a predominantly Muslim society you mean - it doesn't matter if that was in the Middle East or Africa or Asia. It's culture not race. Irish people are not Italian, Latin Americans are not, Filipinos are not, but lots of them are catholics and they live in catholic cultures. Islam is no more a race than Catholicism is.

Shrap · 17-01-2015 12:03am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's not just that, muslims are not a race to begin with. The most populous muslim-majority country is Indonesia.

Then am I speaking the unmentionable by saying maybe there is a racial difference between Muslims I wonder? Do we hear of many fundamentalist Muslims from Indonesia? Perhaps some races take it much more seriously than others.

breed ? :eek:

Again, oops, fcuk - did I mention an unmentionable? Sorry, I'm not being funny here but I didn't know breed was a bad word.

Sure, they grew up in a predominantly Muslim society you mean - it doesn't matter if that was in the Middle East or Africa or Asia. It's culture not race. Irish people are not Italian, Latin Americans are not, Filipinos are not, but lots of them are catholics and they live in catholic cultures. Islam is no more a race than Catholicism is.

Is it always? Or does in someplaces Islam have a racial quality, in that like "Ireland being a Catholic country", some countries people/leaders also claim that their race is inherently Muslim?

Maybe I'm being seen as racist by even thinking about this! But I'm genuinely just teasing out ideas here, promise.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-01-2015 12:36am

Shrap wrote: »

Then am I speaking the unmentionable by saying maybe there is a racial difference between Muslims I wonder? Do we hear of many fundamentalist Muslims from Indonesia? Perhaps some races take it much more seriously than others.

We don't tend to, so there are three possibilities I can think of -

- Indonesian Muslims are total sh*ts but it's just too far away to get reported here
- There is some racial difference between how seriously Asians take religion, compared to the Middle East or North Africa
- There are strong cultural differences between societies, even in those majority-professing the same religion.

I think the last one is self-evidently true, I'd take some convincing of the first two but as always I shall remain open to the evidence :cool:

Again, oops, fcuk - did I mention an unmentionable? Sorry, I'm not being funny here but I didn't know breed was a bad word.

Well it commonly refers to animals so referring to any group of people as a breed is best avoided tbh.

Is it always? Or does in someplaces Islam have a racial quality, in that like "Ireland being a Catholic country", some countries people/leaders also claim that their race is inherently Muslim?

Maybe I'm being seen as racist by even thinking about this! But I'm genuinely just teasing out ideas here, promise.

Again it's about cultures.
There are lots of cultures where Islam is the 'default' religion.
There are cultures of similar 'race' where Islam is not.

katydid · 17-01-2015 12:40am

Shrap wrote: »

Then am I speaking the unmentionable by saying maybe there is a racial difference between Muslims I wonder? Do we hear of many fundamentalist Muslims from Indonesia? Perhaps some races take it much more seriously than others.

Again, oops, fcuk - did I mention an unmentionable? Sorry, I'm not being funny here but I didn't know breed was a bad word.

Is it always? Or does in someplaces Islam have a racial quality, in that like "Ireland being a Catholic country", some countries people/leaders also claim that their race is inherently Muslim?

Maybe I'm being seen as racist by even thinking about this! But I'm genuinely just teasing out ideas here, promise.

You have a point. Places like Kosova and Serbia have lots of Muslims, but they are very liberal Muslims. The women generally wear ordinary clothes and no headscarves and they are not very strict about stuff like dietary rules and praying. Their ancestors would have converted to Islam during the occupation by the Ottoman empire, but I suspect they are still influenced largely by their original Orthodox Christian heritage.

Shrap · 17-01-2015 12:53am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

- There are strong cultural differences between societies, even in those majority-professing the same religion.

What is the difference between culture and race though? Look at France, a culture - all made up of different races. They're not all the French race, but they are all of the French culture, even the terrorists who live there.

Well it commonly refers to animals so referring to any group of people as a breed is best avoided tbh.

Sorry. I'm just used to calling myself some class of a half-breed. Plus, I live in the West where people say "Oh, they're a different breed from us" all the time. You're quite sensitive about that I think?! Very difficult to choose the "right" word for the job in this kind of conversation!

Again it's about cultures.
There are lots of cultures where Islam is the 'default' religion.
There are cultures of similar 'race' where Islam is not.

OK, culture is clearly the word that works better than race. Can we say then that offending someone's culture is as offensive as racism? I think we can. It's not an idea like a belief, it is a thing. It is a measurable, factual thing.

Anyhow, thanks for bearing with me - don't know what exactly I'm wittering on about as the 2 glasses of wine went straight to my head and I'm about to fall asleep on the keyboard. I shall leave you all to it.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-01-2015 1:39am

katydid wrote: »

You have a point. Places like Kosova and Serbia have lots of Muslims, but they are very liberal Muslims. The women generally wear ordinary clothes and no headscarves and they are not very strict about stuff like dietary rules and praying. Their ancestors would have converted to Islam during the occupation by the Ottoman empire, but I suspect they are still influenced largely by their original Orthodox Christian heritage.

I've visited Bosnia, in Mostar they had t-shirts for sale saying 'I AM MUSLIM. DO NOT PANIC' :pac:

One side of the river is christian the other muslim. This division didn't endear me to either 'side'. But everyone I met was very friendly and very accepting of euro rather than the Bosian Convertible Mark... it is a universal truth that a moderately comfortable life in this life is the single greatest enemy of the supernatural promise of a better life in the 'next life' :rolleyes:

K4t · 17-01-2015 7:50am

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish. Incitement to hatred is criminal, and hate crimes are real and dangerous. By suggesting it is ok to hate Muslims (as opposed to Islam) you are suggesting that it is ok to hate people by what might be a moderate and possibly even minor aspect of their overall character. Not ok. Better to judge people on an individual basis based on their actions rather than their beliefs.

Rubbish. Most of what you say I agree with, and I agree with your right to say all of it. But hate crime should never, ever be a criminal offense my friend. It is the way backward. And some day it could turn against you or I and people we love.

stevejazzx wrote: »

There's a different between free speech and hate speech but who decides...it becomes a murky quagmire doesn't it?

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

The best definition of hate speech is simply “speech I hate”. Which it is. It can describe some horrific things I'll admit, but freedom of speech is not, nor ever is, the problem. And freedom of speech includes hate speech.

K4t · 17-01-2015 8:06am

Too many people don't know, or have forgotten, that freedom of speech is a right that is designed to protect the dissenting voice. It is there to protect the right to speech of man. All humans.

These are the words of a US justice (one whom I greatly disagree with on his most famous judgement, but he gets it fairly spot on here:

"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

The eagerness and ease with which so many Western Europeans accept limitations and restrictions on their natural right to freedom of speech and expression is truly unconscionable. In Ireland, we are most influenced by the US and yet even we failed copy the one bloody thing they did best, which was the Bill of Rights (1st amendment specifically) It's depressing. The legacy of the Holocaust. Hitler is laughing in his grave that his legacy lives on, not in the Nazi group fragments dotted across the world, but in our own suppressing of our natural rights to free speech and expression. Does anyone study history anymore? It's so obvious that the majority of boards have grown up in a politically correct vacumn.

K4t · 17-01-2015 8:13am

So many of you call yourselves atheists and such words I don't even know myself, but yet can't see that the only way, the only non-violent way, that you will ever see religion lose its power, and perhaps even disappear forever, is true freedom of speech and expression. And not by limiting it or restricting it.

12 journalists in paris knew this. And I'm not sure for certain if the terrorists who killed them knew it, but I'm god damned sure that Islamic leaders and Christian leaders and so on around the world are all all too aware of it. That is what scares them the most. It terrifies them.

Wake up. This is the war that the PC generation must fight and instead of sticking together and uniting, you are being turned against each other from every angle.

smacl · 17-01-2015 10:13am

K4t wrote: »

But hate crime should never, ever be a criminal offense my friend.

And yet it is, and has been since 1989

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/act/pub/0019/

It is the way backward. And some day it could turn against you or I and people we love.

In my opinion it is progressive, and I would rather have my loved ones and I not become the victims of hate than restricted in their right to encourage hatred of others.

As for history and religion, I think one of the biggest problems that organised religion suffers from is inherited dogma that instructs its followers to discriminate and vilify those who are outside of that faith. So incitement to hatred is actually part of many social traditions as a result. I'm glad to be part of a society that rejects this behaviour as unacceptable.

smacl · 17-01-2015 10:27am

K4t wrote: »

So many of you call yourselves atheists and such words I don't even know myself, but yet can't see that the only way, the only non-violent way, that you will ever see religion lose its power, and perhaps even disappear forever, is true freedom of speech and expression. And not by limiting it or restricting it.

You seem to be confusing atheism with antitheism. I'm an atheist, and an ardent secularist, but not antitheist insofar that I would like to see the active repression of freedom of religious expression. To do so is removing the exact freedom you seem to hold dear.

12 journalists in paris knew this. And I'm not sure for certain if the terrorists who killed them knew it, but I'm god damned sure that Islamic leaders and Christian leaders and so on around the world are all all too aware of it. That is what scares them the most. It terrifies them.

Wake up. This is the war that the PC generation must fight and instead of sticking together and uniting, you are being turned against each other from every angle.

In case you haven't noticed, the huge majority of French Muslims, not to mention the rest of the French population, are moderate and peaceful. I linked an article in a previous post which speculated that primary purpose of Charlie Hebdo attacks was to polarize society and start the type of conflict you're talking about. When the people of France came out and marched in protest against the attack, they did so in unity with all colours and creeds in unison.

I think your metaphor of a call to arms is misplaced in the extreme, as a war is exactly what this is not and should never become.

smacl · 17-01-2015 10:37am

recedite wrote: »

You have listed two separate communities above; "the obedient catholics" and "the broader catholic public" and you seem to be saying it is OK to ridicule the former but not the latter.

Apologies, possibly being less than clear on my part. What I'm saying is that the obedient narrow minded Catholic population of a few decades back became the more laissez-faire Catholics we have today, as the ongoing scandals and subsequent criticism of their church led them to realise its more major flaws. To an extent, one could also suggest they were ashamed of their complicity, and rightly so.

If you mean religious fundamentalists should be ridiculed, on the basis that the person is indistinguishable from the idea, then fair enough, although it does go against what you said earlier about criticising the religion and not the person. But that is largely because the person themselves has allowed themselves, by submitting in an unquestioning way to all the doctrines, to be conflated with the religion.
In this case, ridicule and offense is probably justifiable, although not an actual incitement to hatred

To my mind, you criticise a persons actions, or inactions, more so than the person.

MrPudding · 17-01-2015 10:52am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well it commonly refers to animals so referring to any group of people as a breed is best avoided tbh.

Ok, when did this become a problem? Referring to groups of people as a breed is pretty common and is not necessarily derogatory. The phrase 'new breed' for example, is very common and frequently used to highlight a groups that differs in some way from the larger group from which they are formed. For example, 'the new breed of teenager in Northern Ireland has less time for the sectarian behaviour of previous generations' or 'Tony, who comes from a working class background in Essex represents the new breed of City trader' would be, in my view, a perfectly valid use of the term. I am not sure why using the term in relation to Muslims would be any less acceptable.

MrP

recedite · 17-01-2015 1:35pm

Shrap wrote: »

Some very good points in there, especially how the Jews were treated as a race, not merely a group of people holding a religious belief. However, where is the crossover between race and belief?

Muslims don't consider themselves a race as they seemingly welcome converts where Judaism does not...

The original inhabitants of Palestine and the whole middle east area were the semites, or the semitic tribes. So arabs and jews are both semitic peoples, strictly speaking. Any cartoon caricatures of "the jew" and "Mohommad" normally show semitic features, and any of Jesus and Mary should (but don't :pac:)

At the same time, if you look at modern jews, a lot of them have obviously picked up a lot of genes in Europe, Russia and the USA, despite their not encouraging mixed marriages.
Then there are the black Ethiopian Jews, which go way back in time. And there are the jewish atheists, people who still consider themselves cultural jews despite not believing in any of the religion.

In modern parlance "anti-semitic" is generally taken to mean anti-jew (as in the culture and people) so its partly a racial thing, but mostly a cultural/religious thing IMO.

"Islamophobic" could mean whatever the person saying it wants it to mean. It could mean anti-muslim (the people), or it could mean anti-islam (the religion) or it could mean anti-islamicist (the political/religious movement that would like the whole world to be an Islamic Caliphate operating under Sharia Law)

Shrap · 17-01-2015 2:01pm

recedite wrote: »

Any cartoon caricatures of "the jew" and "Mohommad" normally show semitic features, and any of Jesus and Mary should (but don't :pac:)

To me, that's exactly what makes these cartoons so problematic. To caricature the racial features and specifically make a racial connection to the middle eastern Muslims doesn't sit well with me at all.

And there are the jewish atheists, people who still consider themselves cultural jews despite not believing in any of the religion.

Yes, my OH categorises himself this way. Interestingly, he still carries a sense of loss from his lack of knowledge of his ancestral history (most were killed in the camps) and takes comfort from feeling that he belongs to a race and a culture, rather than a religion.

In modern parlance "anti-semitic" is generally taken to mean anti-jew (as in the culture and people) so its partly a racial thing, but mostly a cultural/religious thing IMO.

I would actually like to see "anti-islamic" being taken up the same way. I'm personally so very uncomfortable about the racial and cultural aspects of the caricatures, that I really have to question why anti-semitic cartoons are not allowable, but anti-islamic ones are. I think we need a conversation about allowing all or nothing. Why are we so much more offended by a cartoon displaying the semitic features of Jews?

"Anti-islamic" could mean whatever the person saying it wants it to mean.

Yup. Problem area alright.

robindch · 17-01-2015 2:09pm

robindch wrote: »

It helps to separate ideas and identities, but religion usually manages to conflate the two, allowing criticism of the religion to be understood as criticism of the person - something people are socially reluctant to do.

Here's an article which suggests that this was done intentionally via a group called the Islamic Observatory, formed under the auspices of the worldwide Organization of Islamic Co-operation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-the-honor-brigade-an-organized-campaign-to-silence-critics-of-islam/2015/01/16/0b002e5a-9aaf-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

recedite · 17-01-2015 2:29pm

I edited my last post, changing "anti-islamic" to islamophobic" as it seems to be the preferred terminology, but both seem to be equivalent, and both equally ambigious. Extremes on both sides seem to have an interest in keeping it ambigious, whether it is the fanatical islamicist muslim complaining about rising Islamophobia in Europe, or the non-muslim person who thinks there are now just too many muslims in Europe.

robindch · 17-01-2015 5:54pm

recedite wrote: »

I edited my last post, changing "anti-islamic" to "islamophobic" as it seems to be the preferred terminology, but both seem to be equivalent, and both equally ambigious.

I'd say that "anti-islamic" is a little more ambiguous as it could refer to being against the religion, or being against people who follow the religion. "Islamophobic" has the edge though as it could be read to be contra the person, but more usefully, suggests that if somebody disagrees with the religion, then the fault lies with that person, not the religion.

For people who go on and on about the necessity for honesty, one keeps on hoping against hope that they might practice a little of it.

robindch · 17-01-2015 6:40pm

News from Moscow reaches Paris quickly these days - Jean-Marie le Pen, founder of the French National Front, has announced that the Charlie Hebdo massacre may have been the work of an “intelligence agency”, working with the connivance of French authorities:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-jeanmarie-le-pen-says-french-terror-attacks-were-work-of-western-intelligence-9985047.html

In unrelated news, the French National Front has received a nine million euro loan, possibly as part of a larger 40m funding package, from a Moscow-based bank owned by one of Putin's friends. Amongst many other places, reports on that here, here and here.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-01-2015 9:21pm

Shrap wrote: »

To me, that's exactly what makes these cartoons so problematic. To caricature the racial features and specifically make a racial connection to the middle eastern Muslims doesn't sit well with me at all.

I don't see much difference in the way the facial features of those two gentlemen are drawn, do you?

There was another Charb one where an American and a Frenchman (both white) were picking through the ruins in post-earthquake Haiti, I can't find it right now, but both had exactly the same exaggerated facial features as above.

Shrap · 17-01-2015 9:43pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I don't see much difference in the way the facial features of those two gentlemen are drawn, do you?

Nope. Seems they were making a point of there being no difference bar the colour of their ties though. "I do not like the colour of your tie". They have been deliberately drawn to look the same to make this point.

I don't take that particular cartoon as a good example of your point, sorry.

smacl · 17-01-2015 10:55pm

Shrap wrote: »

I would actually like to see "anti-islamic" being taken up the same way. I'm personally so very uncomfortable about the racial and cultural aspects of the caricatures, that I really have to question why anti-semitic cartoons are not allowable, but anti-islamic ones are. I think we need a conversation about allowing all or nothing. Why are we so much more offended by a cartoon displaying the semitic features of Jews?

There's no doubt money and political allegiances play a huge part, and I think you're not the first to note the deference. While I've some Jewish background myself, I'm also entirely cynical about any notions of fair play,

Turtwig · 18-01-2015 2:54am

smacl wrote:

In case you haven't noticed, the huge majority of French Muslims, not to mention the rest of the French population, are moderate and peaceful. I linked an article in a previous post which speculated that primary purpose of Charlie Hebdo attacks was to polarize society and start the type of conflict you're talking about. When the people of France came out and marched in protest against the attack, they did so in unity with all colours and creeds in unison.

The attitudes of French people to this attack isn't really as clear as we'd like. People who published endorsements of the attacks online risk facing prosecution. That's a very strong incentive to be publicly dishonest in your attitude. A lot of French Muslims demographics live in the poorer regions of France. Such is the social inequality that those that occupy the wealthier regions very likely are in a form of social housing. It cannot be overstated how legitimate grievances can be fuelled by misinformation into potent grudges. French Muslims believe a lot of myths about the Jewish proportion of the French Population. The same can be said about indigenous French people about Muslims. Though, primarily most of the myths seem to be between conservative Judaism and conservative Islam. Any piece of info that can perpetuate the idea that Muslims are poorly treated in contrast to Jews who are giving preferential treatment is like explosive dynamite and vice versa. Conspiracy theories are rife. Everything from the Charlie Hebdo attacks being a Mossad operation to the idea that the police officer wasn't shot.

I'd love if there was some way to garner all the data on just how attitudes to this attack break down but I don't think there ever will be. There has been a very vocal minority of French people who have endorsed these attacks. There has also been a very vocal minority seeking racial retribution. What's more crucial is knowing how many silent ones there are. As things stands, it's impossible to tell where France actually stands.

Anyone can March in the street. The question isn't how many would March in the street if the violent incidences became more frequent, the question is what would they be marching for?

smacl · 18-01-2015 7:58am

No disagreement with any of the above, but to me it seems very much like an attempt to throw a spark into the tinder box from the outside. No doubt whatsoever that many among the French Muslim population are among the poorer people in French society, but that is true of primarily second generation immigrant populations anywhere, such as the Irish in London or America in times gone by. This imbalance in my opinion takes generations to overcome, and if the more extreme elements can polarize people on ethnic lines, much longer.

12 Reported Murdered at Charlie Hebdo by Islamists

Comments