NSFW / Trigger warning: Pictures in this post contain nudity, sex, racist humour and disrespectful pictures of religious figures, such as the Prophet Muhammad.
Charlie Hebdo (1970-1981, 1992- ), a blasphemous, left-wing French weekly, made world news on January 7th 2015 when two Al Qaeda gunmen massacred 12 people at its Paris office to “avenge the Prophet.” Protests in Europe, Asia and Africa followed. So did anti-Muslim and anti-Christian violence.
Charlie Hebdo sees itself as a finger in the eye of the powerful and the extremist. It laughs at popes, presidents, the police, the military, Israel, religion (especially Islam and Catholicism), the National Front (a racist, right-wing party in France) and others. Its top cartoonists are household names in France.
Stuff to know:
- Cartoon satire goes back before the French Revolution when many could not read. Pictures were used to make a laughing stock of the Church and the King.
- Free speech: France has passed laws against:
- hate speech against a race or religion (1972),
- Holocaust denial (1990),
- apology for terrorism (2014).
- Laïcité (French secularism) not only separates church and state, it sees freedom of religious expression as a threat to French society. There are laws, for example, against burkas, a form of Muslim dress.
- Colonialism, Islamophobia, racism:
- In 1961 the police in Paris massacred between 40 and 200 Algerians.
- In 2005 riots broke out in the banlieues of Paris, poor suburbs with bad schools and high unemployment where most are Black or Muslim (or both), stuck in housing projects.
- From 2009 to 2014, France fought in the Muslim-majority countries of Afghanistan, Chad, Somalia, Libya, Mali, Iraq and Syria and against the Muslim minority in the Central African Republic. Half of these countries were once part of the French Empire.
Does Charlie Hebdo practise hate speech?
Blacks: It does that hipster racist thing where it presents Blacks in racist ways – as monkeys or welfare recipients, for example – but then says that it is laughing at racism.
Catholics: It has been sued at least 13 times by Catholic organizations. It has shown Jesus having sex with God the Father, the pope as a half-naked Rio Carnival queen and, for its Christmas issue, Mary giving birth.
Jews: It stereotypes Jews as Orthodox Jews with big noses. It makes Holocaust jokes. On the other hand, in 2008 it fired one of its cartoonists, Siné, for making an anti-Semitic joke: when President Sarkozy’s son was to marry the daughter of a rich Jewish businessman, Siné said he would go far if he converted to Judaism. Siné received a death threat from the Jewish Defence League. Charlie Hebdo asked him to apologize. When he refused, they fired him.
Muslims: In 2006 Charlie Hebdo reprinted anti-Muslim Danish cartoons, like the one showing a bomb in the turban of the Prophet Muhammad. Muslim organizations took it to court for hate speech, saying it stereotyped Muslims as terrorists, that it used “a simplistic Islamophobia” to increase sales. The court ruled that the cartoons were covered by freedom of expression laws, that the cartoons were aimed at fundamentalists, not Islam.
In 2011 Charlie Hebdo laughed at burkas, showed cartoons of Muhammad – and was firebombed. In 2012 it printed naked pictures of Muhammad.
Then, in 2015, gunmen burst into its weekly staff meeting.
See also:
I am not defending the people that did that, but if you play with fire you might get burned.
I get the feeling there’s something hypocritical in the#JeSuisCharlie thing. Maybe it’s in defending Charlie Hebdo, but not Muslims who get killed by whites? BUT SEE. Muslims are standing up too and hashtagging #JeSuisCharlie. They also disagree with this extremism.
Still they seem to be very defiant. Have there been any updates on Charlie Hebdo since?
LikeLike
@Symphonic Zambophones
“I am not defending the people that did that, BUT…”
No. There is no but. Drawing a fucking cartoon does not merit getting massacred. Period.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that drawing a cartoon should not equal the loss of your life, but I also agree that you mess with fire when it comes to poking fun at people.
We can look at this from the standpoint of high school shootings. The shooter is always a person who could not handle being picked on and bullied. As a result lives end up being lost. It is sad, yes, but it is like playing with fire.
LikeLike
I would just like to remind people that it is indeed possible to condemn the murders AND see this publication for the racist piece of trash that it is. And before anyone says “it’s satire” or “you obviously don’t see it the right way”, ask yourself if you are a member of the group it is targeting. Satire is meant to punch UP not down. It is supposed to attack powerful institutions, NOT already marginalised minority groups.
What’s more, this whole “free speech” bullshit is so incredibly sanctimonious when you consider all the people who are persecuted by their own governments for speaking out every day. This is just another example of white people whinging and moaning about their God-given right to be racist in peace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you are willing to propagandize for the empire you should be willing to die for it. So yes they got what they deserved. I hope the NYT,msnbc and, fox are next.
LikeLike
Are we civilized?—because to be “civil” is a part of being civilized and being civil requires restraint. That means you do not kill someone who offends—BUT you do not maliciously offend and if you do, you apologize. Is this not a basic “value” and that is why we have laws for defamation, libel and/or hate speech…etc? So in order to have a nuanced discourse on civilized speech—we need to define the parameters not just of freedoms—but also of responsibilities.
These values then have to be interpreted in the broader context of Equality (the premise that all human beings are inherently of equivalent value). Reality clearly shows that some human beings have power and privilege and others do not. Therefore in order to equalize this situation, the weak and marginalized must be granted the privilege of some protections. Those who are powerful and privileged have the responsibility/obligation of protecting the rights of those who are not.
Justice needs to be understood within this framework so that when we enact laws…the rights, responsibilities and equality of all citizens are understood and implemented…
This is not the case in France. Justice is unequal, equality is based on preference and rights are arbitrary.
as Greenwald implied in the Intercept—The law against glorifying terrorism/apology for terrorism applies only to acts done by Muslims—not those done by the French. (criticism of French terrorism and wars in other countries)…or for example—Je Suis Charlie marches were allowed but Pro-Palestine marches were not…..
This is what the Mayor of Paris said when she was offended by what was said on U.S. TV about Paris….
“When we’re insulted, and when we’ve had an image, then I think we’ll have to sue, I think we’ll have to go to court, in order to have these words removed,”… “The image of Paris has been prejudiced, and the honor of Paris has been prejudiced.” …
So the French do understand that offense can be hurtful—it is just that they only care about offense to symbols/things they have arbitrarily decided to hold sacred—and if other French citizens feel differently then they are “not French enough”. In this way, with this dogmatic attitude, French secularism is forced on everyone.
This force (oppression) is justified by saying that secularism is a “Universal value”
LikeLiked by 1 person
@anon
Well put.
LikeLike
@Jim Turner and sharinair – You’re both absolutely right. And these particular Muslims are clearly crazed megalomaniacs that felt they had a particular duty for Mohammed. Still, Ideals or not Charlie Hebdo is instigators. Spreading bigotry for bigotry’s sake and just because they can. That’s not nice either. Nor the dehumanization or hate crimes.
Mass murder is too much payback for a tasteless cartoon but I don’t feel like Charlie Hebdo deserves praise. And now they’re dead. Drawing Mohammed’s exposed taint was not worth dying over. That’s what they did with their lives. They drew immature cartoons and now they’re dead. Bien, repose en paix.
Take the hint already, Europe: Depicting Mohammed is to Muslims what the N-word is to black Americans. It’s offensive, outrageous and hurtful to them. Why do you do it? Maybe Islam is just going through its “early Catholicism” phase and in time future Muslims will look back on this stuff like “gosh our ancestors had such bizarre customs” like many modern Christians do but that’s just not today. Protest moar! Get your Martin Luther on! *pray and connect moar*
If I seem like I’m victim-blaming to anyone I apologize. But at the same time I’m not sure if I see Charlie Hebdo as a victim… =\
LikeLike
no wonder Pope Francis is mad. But that said. All free speech should be protected. As long as it doesn’t incite violence. That shouldn’t include bullies who want to stop that said free speech with violence. Like if someone called me “white b-y” , then I attacked that person, I don’t think you could say well ‘that incited violence’, because said violence was triggered by my own mind and actions. Now maybe you could make the case that society in general was the one who incited the violence because they made a word or an image, like n-word, or an image of the pope. etc., have more power and meaning than I believe they should. Just like the people who get so upset at any negative speech about Islam They are the ones who are fanning the flames of hate imo.
If you want to live in a free society, then give others that same freedom, or you will be doomed to lose it yourself.
LikeLike
apparently the attackers also claimed that they were upset by Abu Ghraib torture and wars (?) —the political aspects of the rage are often dismissed by the West—perhaps because discussions of the political and social aspects of alienation and rage are more uncomfortable to discuss?
LikeLike
I’m full on the side of free speech – until it becomes harassment.
LikeLike
The monkey picture is barely a caricature, because it actually happened.
With the keyword Taubira+monkey , this could easily be found on google.
To think that a member of some political party made publicly available a picture comparing the french justice minister to a monkey and denied that any racist or racial tones were involved.
Anyway, it’s quite refreshing having an american point of view on charlie hebdo.
LikeLike
Charlie Hebdo is a pretty disgusting magazine and, even worse, crude and unfunny. But they didn’t have it coming to be killed. They had coming to be calles assholes. Everyone should have the right to publish such things, but that doesn’t mean I have to like them for it.
One also shouldn’t forget that this wave of “Je suis Charlie”-solidarity only happens because they’re not only white but also left-wingers. If Marine Le Pen would have been shot, nobody would call “Je suis Le Pen”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
/// But at the same time I’m not sure if I see Charlie Hebdo as a victim…///
Interesting. Unarmed people who are shot to death with an AK-47 “are not seen as a victim.”
What then would make them a victim? An atomic bomb?
LikeLike
///Take the hint already, Europe: Depicting Mohammed is to Muslims what the N-word is to black Americans. It’s offensive, outrageous and hurtful to them. Why do you do it? Maybe Islam is just going through its “early Catholicism” phase and in time future Muslims will look back on this stuff like “gosh our ancestors had such bizarre customs” like many modern Christians do but that’s just not today. Protest moar! Get your Martin Luther on! *pray and connect moar*///
So basically you are saying that allowing immigration of Muslems means that your country returns to the Middle Ages.
Now THAT is racist to muslems!
LikeLike
Seriously Abagond? Charlie Hebdo’s staff was murdered for excercising their right to Free Speech!
Show some respect for the dead.
And I don’t agree with everything they publish, for instance their mockery of Christianity or the Narional Front, both of which I greatly admire. But I would fight to the death for their right to say it.
No matter how insulted you are by something someone says/writes/draws, it doesn’t give you the right to kill them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly, Bobby.
Twelve people are machine-gunned because two people do not like their drawings.
If all you then can say is “but I did not like those drawings either.”, then you sound like Bob Hope. Very like Bob Hope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Abagond
Great, thought-provoking post, as usual.
Why do you call Front National “racist”? Can you give an example?
LikeLike
@Bobby M, Jeff Elberfeld
“No matter how insulted you are by something someone says/writes/draws, it doesn’t give you the right to kill them.”
Who’s making the argument that Charlie Hebdo writers don’t have a right to say/write/draw something? Who’s saying it’s rightful to kill someone?
LikeLike
The Mahomet cartoons were hilarious! I didn’t like the ones about Christianity or the National Front.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld – 1. I don’t see Charlie Hebdo as a victim because I see them as jerks. Should I feel sorry for them? I have to? I have moral duty to? Well it doesn’t come easy when they never seem to feel sorry for anyone else.
2. Islam is a religion, not a race.
3. You’re probably just posting to be a troll, as with that silly implication and flimsy attempt at calling me racist but to clarify if you’re perhaps ignorant of Christianity’s ancient, complex history Christianity at one point was very gung-ho about “heresy” as well. Catholicism was at one point the only church of Jesus in the entire world, which makes it ironic when people today call it un-Christian. But it was very strict For instance today we have a lot of imagery of things in the Bible and we take it for granted, like winged people as angels. But back then this was forbidden because Moses and Judaism before Catholicism existed forbade any idolatry or imagery of celestial things. This is one of the disagreements that led to the first schism. A lot later over thousands of years Christianity has changed so very much. No two self-identifying Christian people now have the same exact meaning of what it means to be a Christian. THAT’S what I mean and since you seem to be the only one who took it to mean anything else you must be a little less educated on Christian history than other posters.
LikeLike
@Bobby M
The Pope and Jeezus cartoons were much funnier.
LikeLike
Jim Turner wrote: “No. There is no but. Drawing a fucking cartoon does not merit getting massacred. Period.” But practicing your religion, thousands of miles away from The West, merits being shredded by ammunition mounted on drones as happened to quite a few people in Afghanistan, Iraq,Syria, etc.? The best comment I’ve read on this thing came from Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, who went off script and expressed what was construed as sympathy for the guy who held the people in the Kosher store hostage. He declared: “I feel like Charlie Coulibaly”. His witty conflation of victim and perpetrator didn’t go down well because it got him arrested. http://www.centredaily.com/2015/01/25/4570986/french-arrests-raise-question.html. I guess only some people have the right to make cynical comments. I don’t think the Charlie Hebdo crew got what they deserved, and I think it’s ridiculous to get all worked up over drawings showing some naked guy with a turban who’s supposed to be the prophet of Islam. Dieudonné’s arrest and the Charlie Hebdo incident shows that the combatants have more in common than they’d care to admit.
LikeLike
@resw77
No they weren’t
LikeLike
First off, I don’t argue morality, it’s pointless. I argue for practicality. The problem of the cartoonists was the same problem for many of the terrorist they despised: Hubris. The terrorists believe that Allah will come down and aid them in their holy war and they have a “shield of faith” which guides and protects them from harm. The cartoonists believed that democracy, justice and their very moral correctness would somehow shield them from all harm while they make fools out of their enemies. Oh, how very wrong they were!
Adults need to realize that arguing morality is meaningless in the real world. People on this planet have many different opinions and some of these people will actually kill you for disrespecting their opinions. It has nothing to do with morality or what is correct because you will never, ever change this cold, hard reality. However, what you can do is 1) decided if living is more valuable to you than possibly dying for your beliefs and 2) if you decide to make your beliefs public you can take steps to protect yourself. Anyone can say that people don’t have the right to kill other people. Will that save you when the killer has a gun to your head? Keep dreaming.
This is not a case of hindsight is 20/20, the cartoonists were attacked before this recent slaughter. If they wanted to be safe, I’m sure some security precautions would have, at the very least, given them time to alert the authorities. I’m not talking about some senile security guard either. They could have spent some of that money protecting themselves, because they knew that there was a possibility of an attack. It happened before and I’m sure they knew it could happen again.
It may sound a little like victim blaming, but if a man walks into a lion’s den unarmed to save a child and get both him and the child eaten in the process, wouldn’t you say that man was a little foolish to not at least take a stick or a knife or a gun with him, especially if he had the option??
If you are going to do things of this nature, please take precautions and protect yourself!
LikeLike
@ Jethro
I deleted a comment for use of moderated language.
LikeLike
Why do they feel the need to draw pornographic images of Mohammed? Islam does not permit ANY depictions of Mohammed or God if memory serves. That’s why mosques are filled with beautiful calligraphy and designs of flowers instead. So the cartoons making fun of Christianity are not on the same level at all since there are tons of depictions of God and Jesus even in churches. Not to mention that Christianity is hegemonic in Europe and Europe colonized the whole world.
Plenty of the Muslims growing up in France relate to PoC here in the U.S because they experience the same racial and colonial dynamics.
LikeLike
@Some guy
How nice it is to see you comment again.
LikeLike
I like the analogy with the N-word: If you know that saying X offends a marginalized group, then why do you want to keep saying it? What is the point?
I also agree that satire should punch up, not down. Making a laughing stock of a marginalized group is not being brave – it is being a bully. Therefore “Je Suis Charlie” was sickening. That would be like saying, “Je Suis Paula Deen.”
I am FOR the right of Charlie Hebdo to be as racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic as they want to be in their magazine. It is better to know who your enemies are and what they are thinking. Also, ideas are easier to fight in the open.
I am AGAINST what Al Qaeda did. That should go without saying. I have never been for the killing of unarmed civilians. Even at the level of propaganda it was terrible: it probably did more to support and spread Islamophobia in the West than anything Charlie Hebdo has ever done.
On the other hand, Charlie Hebdo was hardly an innocent victim, what with their passive-aggressive self. They knew they were playing with fire. The Danish cartoons led to the death of over a hundred people, Charlie Hebdo itself was taken to court by Muslim organizations and then later firebombed. The firebombing was wrong, but it was a wake-up call.
LikeLike
ISLAM AND MOSLEMS DO NOT BELONG IN EUROPE!
PERIOD!
FULL STOP!
EUROPEANS AND CHRISTIANS DO NOT BELONG IN THE MIDDLE EAST!
PERIOD!
FULL STOP!
Europe is for ethnic Europeans, for Western Judeo-Christian Civilization.
The Middle East is for ethnic Arabs, for Islamic civilization.
Of course, there are exceptions, like Lebanese Christians or Bosnian Moslems. However, both of those are completely different than Moslem immigrants in France, Germany, and the UK. Why? Because those communities have been there for many centuries, are indigenous, and are not immigrants.
It’s time for Europe to come to it’s senses and kick everyone who is not at least 75% the ethnicity and also the religion of the host country out.
LikeLike
@ abagond
“I also agree that satire should punch up, not down. Making a laughing stock of a marginalized group is not being brave – it is being a bully. Therefore “Je Suis Charlie” was sickening. That would be like saying, “Je Suis Paula Deen.” ”
but who is up and who is down in 2015?
I say down is: white, east asian, christian, buddhist, hindu
up is: subsaharaan african, muslim
How can Paula Deen be up in a country with Obama as president, Holder als Head of the DoJ? with the NYT as most important news outlet? with each and every University, school being strongly antiracist, pro black?
And most important: up is the one who does violence to down. Globally subsaharan africans are the ones who kill non subsaharan africans, muslims kill non muslims. And up is the one who reproduces: Subsaharan Africans and muslims reproduce, East Asians and Whites do not.
LikeLike
@Erik Sieven you need to google white privilege. In terms of religion, Christians are the ones with privilege in Europe and the U.S.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld – Oh. I read your second comment right after your serious first one and missed the sarcasm. You’re one of those
“The Muslims are coming!” guyspeople who are concerned about the influx of Muslims to Europe like Bobby M seems to be.LikeLike
I am a bit surprised to see the amount of people that view this in a similar manner to mine. I really thought most people would scream “It is unacceptable what those Muslims did!”
LikeLike
@Dave
“If you want to live in a free society, then give others that same freedom, or you will be doomed to lose it yourself.”—I agree. In these instances I am struggling with the line between free speech and hate speech though. At what point does the free speech becomes hate speech.
Also it seems people do things with the intent of “I dare you to respond” or a “What are you going to do about it” attitude. They seek to get a reaction and hide behind freedom of speech.
With the Charlie Hebdo he continued even after being sued and I think it really was a matter of “what can you do to me” attitude.
LikeLike
A Moslem-Free Europe is a happy, vibrant, and safe Europe
A Moslem-Filled Europe is a sad, boring, and violent Europe
LikeLike
Difference between criticism and hate speech is intent. Malicious intent—meaning, done for no other purpose than to cause hurt/harm is hate. Criticism can be of 2 types, ignorant criticism and constructive criticism.
I agree that it is much better to have prejudices out there in the open than going underground—but this means that good people have to stand up for good values, because if they remain silent—then history (European history in particular) already tells us what will happen.
and fortunately, there are good people in the West who are doing that—and using art to do so….
1) In Dresden Germany, rock stars got together in a concert to protest against the ant-Muslim movement
2) In U.S. anti-Muslim ads were defaced with messages condemning hate
3) In Pakistan artists made large pictures of children killed by drones to deter soldiers from killing more……
On the other hand there is also the sad fact that the Movie American Sniper—that celebrates prejudice and glorifies violence— is a box office success and nominated for awards….. (I have not seen the movie—only read reviews..ex The Guardian, Salon…etc)
So what is the difference between an American who goes out and kills more than a hundred human beings —because he does not like them—and the frenchmen who killed a dozen because they did not like them?
What is the difference between Americans who conduct horrifying and grisly tortures such as forced rectal feeding, water boarding and other techniques (the Guardian—CIA torture report) on human beings and ISIS who beheads people and puts up videos?
LikeLike
abagond said “The firebombing was wrong, but it was a wake-up call.”
Absolutely, time for Europeans to realize what mass immigration from Muslim countries will turn their societies into.
“Charlie Hebdo was hardly an innocent victim, what with their passive-aggressive self. They knew they were playing with fire.”
Abagond, why is it not OK to victim blame when the victim is a woman or a minority, but it’s perfectly fine if it’s a white man? Like what happened was terrible, but can’t say they didn’t have it coming… Do you think if we prevent only all depictions of Muhammed (wbuh) that will satisfy Muslims as the France gradually becomes majority Muslim? In majority Muslim countries is the press even allowed to criticize the religion of Islam at all? Nope.
Bobby, hate to say it, but the word “vibrant” is now synonymous with third world conditions in its normal usage by the establishment (e.g., what the NYT would refer to as a “vibrant” neighborhood would never be an all white one).
LikeLike
@Bobby M
I hate to break it to you but Christianity is not from Europe. Jesus is from the Middle East..not Europe.
LikeLike
anon said: “So what is the difference between an American who goes out and kills more than a hundred human beings —because he does not like them—and the frenchmen who killed a dozen because they did not like them?
What is the difference between Americans who conduct horrifying and grisly tortures such as forced rectal feeding, water boarding and other techniques (the Guardian—CIA torture report) on human beings and ISIS who beheads people and puts up videos?”
anon — you are the problem because you try to put a nice face on an evil religion which deifies a man who was a mass-murderer, pedophile, rapist, torturer and liar (wbuh). This is like saying what is the difference between executing a mass murderer for his crimes vs. killing someone in self-defense. And you can’t deny that usually Muslim Terrorists will effectively use civilians as shields purposefully, even though they know this will send many women and children to meet Allah (aka Shatan).
LikeLike
@ Speak Out
Images of the Prophet—-I don’t think it is as simple as that—The images would have mattered less if the West had not invaded so many Muslim-majority countries recently—and killed so many people. So, this provides a way to channel the anger of the people–which is politically convenient for some of the governments/dictators of the invaded Muslim-Majority countries because they colluded with the West to have their own citizens killed…..
The extremists want Islamophobia because the more youths are angered, alienated, oppressed, harmed in the West, the more recruits they get……It also confirms their narrative that the “West” is at war with all Islam/Muslims…
As many have noted—the Islamophobes and the extremists are on the same side—the side of war and violence.
LikeLike
oops, accidental analogy fail on my part above.. should be someone killing in execution of a mass murderer (or killing in self-defense) vs. premeditated murder. Almost all murderers have a strong reason for wanting to kill someone, but they don’t have a legally justifiable one.
LikeLike
@biff
Just because the reaction an instigator gets is worse than the initial action, does not negate the instigation.
If you say or do something then you should be prepared to accept the consequences, whatever they may be. I’m all for free speech, but I’m not crazy enough to tell a room full of women that they belong in the kitchen.
LikeLike
@ Biff
So if Muslims do as you say—what of Americans who have glorified and made into heroes people such as Christopher Columbus and George Washington? or more recently Chris Kyle (American Sniper)…..
LikeLike
resw:
“If you say or do something then you should be prepared to accept the consequences, whatever they may be.”
OK, so if a woman dresses like a prostitute then she had it coming.
anon:
“what of Americans who have glorified and made into heroes people such as Christopher Columbus and George Washington? or more recently Chris Kyle (American Sniper)”
The sniper is easier. He was doing his job and trying to take out terrorists. I actually agree that the U.S. shouldn’t be in the Middle East, but if we weren’t there, or willing to step in (meaning we get there anyway), there would be a whole lot more dead bodies and the Shiites and Sunnis would duke it out till one of them (probably the Shiites) were all killed.
Columbus and Washington were part of the founding of a great country. They were conquerors. If you want to view the Charlie murderers as the vanguard of an advancing army then perhaps you can make the analogy. I suppose when Muslims take over France, maybe they can have a day to honor the martyrs who gave their lives to protect the prophet’s image (wbuh). That doesn’t mean the current inhabitants of France have to go down without a fight.
Anyway anon, curious about where you are from. Do you live in a majority Muslim country by choice? If not, why not?
LikeLike
@ Anon
Well said.
LikeLike
the story keeps getting more & more interesting
Helric Fredou who was investigating charlie hebdo attacks committed suicide
http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/limousin/2015/01/08/limoges-suicide-d-un-commissaire-de-police-626916.html
——————————–
Helric Fredou’s family denied access to autopsy report. MSM gives them the silent treatment!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/26/fredou/
LikeLike
“Only you would know how to dress like a prostitute.”—-ROFL
LikeLike
@ biff
I never said they had it coming, that they deserved it. I said that they knew they were playing with fire, meaning they knew the likely consequences of their actions.
LikeLike
@ biff
Your American Sniper logic is pretty much just Might Makes Right. Sprinkle any act of violence with the magic pixie dust of state authority and you are “just doing your job.” Cool trick. In effect, the Holocaust was wrong only because Hitler lost the war.
LikeLike
abagond:
It’s ridiculous to compare killing terrorist suspects who will ultimately kill many more innocents if not stopped with knowingly killing innocent men, women and children. However, you are right that the victor writes the history books. The Allies (including USSR and China) actually committed more atrocities against civilians in actual numbers, but the Axis powers are always painted as the bad guys in very black and white terms…
LikeLike
@Erik Sieven
How can Paula Deen be up in a country with Obama as president, Holder als Head of the DoJ?
This position you present is sophistry. It implies that the reality of a black President means all social ills (race related ones) and institutional anti black practices just happily switched off or vanished ex ante Obama’s presidency or post Obama election. Sigh, the shallow, simpleton character of such a view is exhausting to see presented for serious consideration.
You could google “white privilege” or you could just think for 60 seconds.
———————————–
@ All
Note the very wretched trick employed by Sieven and people like him:
You’re supposed to take your “black President bone” go off to the corner, shut your mouth and congratulate yourself that Utopia has finally been reached. And don’t think too deeply, just gnaw on that bone and think happy thoughts. Like Kiwi said, in the scroll: Whereas an American might put on a fake smile to please others…
LikeLike
… it shouldn’t be necessary to provide the following reminder, what I spoke to in my first paragraph is sufficient to point out the absurd quality of Sieven’s position. Having said that, here is that reminder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy
LikeLike
@Symphonic Zambophones
/// 1. I don’t see Charlie Hebdo as a victim because I see them as jerks. Should I feel sorry for them? I have to? I have moral duty to? Well it doesn’t come easy when they never seem to feel sorry for anyone else.///
I see. If you think that people may die because YOU see them as jerks… well, I hope you live far away from other people.
///2. Islam is a religion, not a race.///
Islamophobia can be defined as anti-Muslim racism and a continuation of anti-Asian and anti-Arab racism.
See Poynting, S.; Mason, V. (2007): “The resistible rise of Islamophobia: Anti-Muslim racism in the UK and Australia before 11 September 2001”. Journal of Sociology
///3. You’re probably just posting to be a troll, as with that silly implication and flimsy attempt at calling me racist but to clarify if you’re perhaps ignorant of Christianity’s ancient, complex history Christianity at one point was very gung-ho about “heresy” as well.///
“probably”…”perhaps”… please don’t speculate, S.Z.
///Catholicism was at one point the only church of Jesus in the entire world, which makes it ironic when people today call it un-Christian. But it was very strict For instance today we have a lot of imagery of things in the Bible and we take it for granted, like winged people as angels. But back then this was forbidden because Moses and Judaism before Catholicism existed forbade any idolatry or imagery of celestial things. This is one of the disagreements that led to the first schism. A lot later over thousands of years Christianity has changed so very much. No two self-identifying Christian people now have the same exact meaning of what it means to be a Christian. THAT’S what I mean and since you seem to be the only one who took it to mean anything else you must be a little less educated on Christian history than other posters.///
Yes. Those where the Middle ages. I do not want to return to them.
LikeLike
@abagond
I also agree that satire should punch up, not down. Making a laughing stock of a marginalized group is not being brave – it is being a bully. Therefore “Je Suis Charlie” was sickening. That would be like saying, “Je Suis Paula Deen.”
With about 1.6 billion followers or 23% of world population, I cannot call adherends of the second world religion “marginalized.”
However, if you mean the small group of Muslem fanatics that Charlie Hebdo was aiming at: they are indeed a marginal group. But then again, that would imply that you cannot make fun of the Tea Party either.
LikeLike
@ Bobby
///ISLAM AND MOSLEMS DO NOT BELONG IN EUROPE!
PERIOD!
FULL STOP!
EUROPEANS AND CHRISTIANS DO NOT BELONG IN THE MIDDLE EAST!
PERIOD!
FULL STOP!
Europe is for ethnic Europeans, for Western Judeo-Christian Civilization.
The Middle East is for ethnic Arabs, for Islamic civilization.
///
Nope. Everybody should just live together in peace. Without killing eachother.
I really do not understand why that seems to be so difficult
LikeLike
I am FOR the right of Charlie Hebdo to be as racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic as they want to be in their magazine. It is better to know who your enemies are and what they are thinking. Also, ideas are easier to fight in the open.
Nice. The magazine who fights the hardest against the racism of the Front National and against the bigotry of the Catholic Church is regarded by you as “enemy.”
Youve seen these pictures? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/11/1357057/-The-Charlie-Hebdo-cartoons-no-one-is-showing-you
LikeLike
@ Erik @ Jeff
In France where Charlie Hebdo sells its weekly, Muslims very much are marginalized.
LikeLike
@sharina
Hate speech is very hard to define in this setting imo. I don’t think think the intent is to cause a riot, but to make a point. That being said ,me as a catholic, I was slightly offended by some of the photos. I’d be lying if I said otherwise. It doesn’t make me want to hurt anyone though. So I would go back to my point , is there some outside influence that contributes to any response of violence?
LikeLike
Basically the magazine made fun of everybody yet these faction of terrorists chose reacted with cunning retardation…
LikeLike
@ abagond
Very much? French muslems got their problems, but saying that they are “marginalized” is not the complete truth.
All in all, one might conclude that, despite their problems — prime among them joblessness among youth generally, not just Muslim youth — the French need take no integrationist lessons from their European neighbors.
LikeLike
@Legion
“Like Kiwi said, in the scroll: Whereas an American might put on a fake smile to please others…”–Come to the south and it is honey and dear or my all time favorite “bless your heart.”
LikeLike
@Dave
Before I answer your question, when you say violence do you mean killing or any form of brutality?
LikeLike
My country for my people, your country for yours. It’s really not that complicated.
And Chris Kyle was a hero. He killed TERRORISTS who wanted to kill American soldiers. That is totally different than the Hebdo attacks or the Holocaust, which both killed CIVILIANS.
LikeLike
///My country for my people, your country for yours. It’s really not that complicated.///
That statement would make Native Americans feel delighted! 🙂
LikeLike
Yeah they were savage heathens who had it coming
LikeLike
@biff
“OK, so if a woman dresses like a prostitute then she had it coming.”
I wouldn’t know what dressing like a prostitute is. Perhaps you have some experience with that and can explain. If I had to guess, prostitutes dressed any way they wanted…there’s no industry standard to my knowledge.
And I believe people are free to dress however they want, accept the consequences. If you dress a certain way, don’t be surprised certain people treat you a certain way. Try wearing your birthday suit in public and let me know how that goes.
“but if we weren’t there…there would be a whole lot more dead bodies and the Shiites and Sunnis would duke it out till one of them…were all killed.”
That’s a hypothetical. In fact, you don’t know what things would have been like without US intervention.
“I suppose when Muslims take over France”
Muslims are still a small minority in France. Why does a small minority scare you so much? Especially considering that Muslims have been in France for hundreds of years. If they did hypothetically become a majority of the French population, it would be the fault of French politicians, not Muslims.
@Kiwi
“Deep down, he knows he’s a coward.”
Right, I’d dare him to openly disrespect Muhammad…not just anonymously behind a computer screen. Let’s see if he’s as audacious as the Charlie Hebdo staff. I’m guessing not.
“Mass migration of Europeans to North America isn’t invasion, conquest, or even genocide, it’s the founding of a great country. ”
Exactly. And even today, when the French migrate en masse to Morocco, they’re just good ole expats. Moroccans going to France, however, are Muslim threats to ethnic French society.
(http://youtu.be/gjqwZPwbHKc)
LikeLike
@Bobby M
Right, America for Native Americans!
LikeLike
I can’t tell whether Bobby M. Is joking or serious.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Bobby M is not serious. He is repeating cartoonish talking points that were already discredited on another thread.
He is White guy living in North America who says Europe for Europeans. The absurdity of that has already been pointed out to him but he keeps saying it.
He also uses ALL CAPS.
LikeLike
@ abagond
muslims are not marginalized in France. They are the most aggressive and succefull religion in France. They rise their share of the population each year. They are the most respected religion as they can threat everybody else. Muslime kill much more non Muslims in France than the other way round. Muslims men marry non muslim women but not the other way round.
@Legion
just because people say there is something like white privilege does not mean that it exists. what actually exist is black privilege
LikeLike
@Erik Sieven
“Muslime kill much more non Muslims in France than the other way round.”
How would you know without statistics on French criminals by religion, which don’t exist?
France’s Muslim population (7.5%) is the highest (estimated) among non-Muslim European countries. Estonia has a much smaller Muslim population (0.2%) but much higher homicide and violent crime rate. How do you account for that?
“what actually exist is black privilege”
If black privilege exists, what’s your basis? My evidence for white privilege is the numerous studies and actual statistics showing that equally qualified blacks are less likely to get loans and jobs at anywhere near the same rate as their equally qualified white counterparts in America.
LikeLike
“Erik Sieven @ abagond
muslims are not marginalized in France.”
Linda says,
pure unadulterated LIES.
In Europe period, not just France, Muslims are looked at as “perpetual foreigners” — just like every other dark group of people from the Mother countries’ former Colonies in Africa, Caribbeans, Middle East, or Asia
the gains made by Muslims or any other immigrant group in Europe, does not erase their marginalization in society.
as a group, regardless of how long they or their parents have lived in Europe, they face discrimination and prejudice
this is not new and this information can be found in the Newspaper for anyone to see
___________________________
French-Algerians are still second-class citizens
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/french-algerians-still-second-class
“Secular France is officially colour-blind, meaning that politicians are not allowed to offer statistics about French-Algerians. However, sociological studies routinely reveal scandalous discrimination against up to 4 million of them in everything from jobs to housing. Woeful under-representation can be seen throughout public life. There are pitifully few French-Algerians in politics, the law, the media or any other profession.”
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2009/07/europeanmoroccans_and_the_live
FROM THE DUTCH press, echoes of a fascinating poll of first and second generation immigrants of Moroccan heritage.
“Respondents were asked about the difficulty of finding a job as a Moroccan compared to the experience of those from the majority native population.
This threw up big differences: in Spain (which suffers from high unemployment and a two-tier labour market that protects insiders on permanent contracts), 80% said it was harder to land a job as a Moroccan, a sentiment shared by only 53% of German respondents.
The Dutch, Belgians and French have special grounds to worry: in each of those countries, second generation immigrants said they felt more discrimination in the job market than their first generation elders.
LikeLike
@ rews77:
what is black privilege?
people of westafrican ancestry kill more people of non westafrican ancestry in the USA than the other way round, same can be said about beating someone up, rape etc.
men of westafrican ancestry are by far the most successful on the partner market.
everyday thousands, maybe millions of whites, asians, hispanicy dare not to look into the eyes of people of westafrican ancestry on american roads, in schools, in public in general, in prisons and so on.
when a person of non westafrican ancestry kills a person of westafrican ancestry the president and with him every important person is outraged, the other way round only racists are outraged (and of course racist ar a truly marginalized demographic).
regarding muslim crime in France.
muslims are the majority in french prisons, why do you think they are in jail? because of shoplifting pencils?
@ Linda
of course Muslims have educational outcomes not as good as non muslims in France, of course the have less official income. But those things do not matter. What matters is that the muslims have the power and the non muslims not. muslims reproduce, they rise their share of the population. Who needs an average office job with 50.000 Eur salary when you instead can use your A 47 to make 200.000 year (with the bonus of feeling awesome by intimidating the non-muslims)?
LikeLike
@Eric Sieven
I freaking hate how racist white people like to claim that non-Black people of color are scared of Black people just like they are. We don’t look at Black people the way whites do. We don’t have to dehumanize Black people to justify our ancestors’ having enslaved and lynched them. We know what it’s like to be people of color, we know that being non-white doesn’t make us inferior or less human in any way, we know that racism exists.
And you can talk about “Black privilege” without people of color laughing our asses off at you when Black people colonize the entire world and force a racial system on all of us where Blacks are on top and whites are on the bottom, then keep that going for 500+ years.
LikeLike
It looks from the photo that Charlie Hebdo’s staff was all white. Not a good idea to make fun of people of color and non-Christians without anyone on staff to say, “I don’t think that’s so funny” or “I really don’t think that’s necessary”. For example, comedian Hari Kondabolu stopped making jokes involving Indian accents because one day he realized that it hurt him to make fun of people who speak like his own father.
LikeLike
@Sharina, Well if it’s a terrorist organization that is doing the “retaliation”, I would say they are directly influenced by that group. But I think there are other things, like the court of public opinion and what is tolerated and what isn’t. People used to always protect the right of speech because they want their own protected. I see that going away, and even the pope is saying he’d like to punch someone in the nose. There is a time to fight, but people today need a little tougher skin. The Pope should laugh at these ridiculous cartoons imo. I like the pope , but I don’t think he’s setting the best example. What ever happened to free will? I say that the newspaper is disgraceful, but the controversy just makes them sell more. What’s the old phrase? Even bad press is good press. I wouldn’t waste my time reading trash like this, but I do believe in their right to do it. I wouldn’t think this should be for kids though. So I do think maybe some adult censorship may be warranted. It should be at the back of the counter ID required. I guess that’s another issue though.
LikeLike
@ Erik Sieven
“people of westafrican ancestry kill more people of non westafrican ancestry in the USA than the other way round”
What does that have to do with “black privilege”?
“men of westafrican ancestry are by far the most successful on the partner market.”
I have no clue what that means.
“when a person of non westafrican ancestry kills a person of westafrican ancestry the president and with him every important person is outraged, the other way round only racists are outraged”
There are many African Americans killed by whites that don’t make the headlines or get mentioned by the President. Abagond has covered some of them.
“regarding muslim crime in France. muslims are the majority in french prisons, why do you think they are in jail? ”
There are no statistics on the religion of French inmates, and estimates range widely. If most French inmates are Muslim, which is quite possible, it does not mean most crime is committed by Muslims. It only means most inmates are Muslims.
As you may know, most crime goes UNsolved, by far, and in France, Muslims report high levels of discrimination.
LikeLike
“@Eric Sieven,
What matters is that the muslims have the power and the non muslims not. muslims reproduce, they rise their share of the population. Who needs an average office job with 50.000 Eur salary when you instead can use your A 47 to make 200.000 year (with the bonus of feeling awesome by intimidating the non-muslims)?”
Linda says,
OK, I get it… you are only interested in talking National Front nonsense…
because what you describe above, is the typical complaint against refugees/ asylum seekers.
but I guess, for you, there is no difference between “refugees” and legal immigrants who immigrated from former “colonies” of France, Britain, Belgium, etc.
I do agree that the current refugee situation in Europe is getting out of hand,
but you National Front people have been singing this song since Europe opened their doors for guest workers and students from their former colonies.
people who were Invited by European governments and worked to help rebuild Europe after WW2 — since your predecessors, the previous right-wing Nazis, managed to kill off a large portion of the white European population.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/globerem/main/2010/10/muslim-migration-to-europe.html
“In the 1950s, many labor migrants or “guest workers” from Southern and Eastern Europe, Turkey and the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa were recruited by governments and businesses to work in and rebuild Europe.
Germany, for example, recruited labor migrants from Turkey. France and Belgium attracted many young men from Morocco and Algeria. Over time more immigrants joined them as European economies flourished and job opportunities continued to grow.”
Even with the incentive programs where countries, like Germany, paid mothers to have babies, white Europeans just did not seem interested in having a lot of children.
Maybe you need to take up that issue instead
LikeLike
@ Linda
I personally have no problem at all with the immigration of southern europeans to central europe in the sixties. I have no problem with immigration from turkey. even if it is not true that those people rebuilt Europe. The immigration began when Europe was already built up again.
But I see some problems with arab immigration to Europe and with subsharaan African immigration into Europe/Asia/America.
Of course there is no difference between a asylum seekers from Africa and legal immigrants from Africa. Asylum seekers from Africa in Europe are almost nave refugees, because the people who really suffer in Africa neither have the money nor the possibility to get to Europe. Also it is never women, old people or children. No the only asylum seekers who get to europe are young, strong men who have some 10000 Eur for the transportation, which is not very common in Africa
LikeLike
@Dave
I want to first start by saying….I was not aware the pope said that (shocked face).
Weak minded people are easily influenced by anything and anyone. In this case I would agree that the influence or fear of Al Qaeda likely played a major role. Though true to my nature I would want to know what made them so weak minded to begin with. What in their life made them susceptible to the influence of a known terrorist organization. Some would say that lose and despair make people do crazy things. I have to wonder how true that is.
LikeLike
@Eric
“men of westafrican ancestry are by far the most successful on the partner market.”
Instead of posting bullsh&t on blogs, you should be out breeding as many white women as you can! You are wasting your time here. Dozens of white infants are not being born because of you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please do not encourage him to breed.
LikeLike
Who cares why foreign-descendants are in France/Germany/UK/etc. Kick every last one of them out.
In the words of Böhse Onkelz,
“Türken Raus! Türken Raus! Alle Türken müssen raus!”
LikeLike
@Biff and @Eric are both very wise.
LikeLike
@Kiwi – There is no need for ad hominem attacks.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
I would have nothing against Moslems if they stayed in their own countries. If they wanna burn in hell eternally, that’s their choice.
LikeLike
Muslims in France—They are marginalized. The prison population is disproportionately Muslim. The poor are ghettoized (Banlieues ) and coupled with joblessness and police harassment—it leads to alienation.
With regards to state protections, the French-Muslims say they are not asking for special treatment—only that the same degree of protections be extended to them as is extended to another minority—the French-Jews.
Much of Islamophobia (its rhetoric and cartoon caricatures) is recycled anti-Semitism—that may be a reason that rise in Islamophobia often sees a rise in anti-Semitism also.
There is also a sense of alienation in white European youth—a loss of identity, a loss of economic security, despair in their governments/countries….For example, before Islamophobia united them, some of the EDL (U.K.) was made up of football hooligans who went about causing a ruckus at matches and randomly destroying public property in between matches….
This is not just a European problem—its happening pretty much everywhere. To have a fictional scapegoat to blame is a convenient myth for governments because the real problem is government policies (or lack thereof). Unjust laws and unequal socio-economic systems that benefit a small elite at the expense of the majority.
In order to fix this problem from its core—everyone needs to decide what their “value systems”(ethico-moral principles upon which they want to base their laws and socio-economic systems) are.
So, this struggle for “identity” is in some ways a very important step. Right now, people are choosing division—the idea of deciding what they are by projecting onto the “other” what they are not. But this is not the only way. We can also decide what to be based on the most ideal and noble principles and ethico-moral standards. Such a discussion will lead to unity because basic human aspirations are really not all that different.
Art—Today. some of our art seems to encourage the most ugly aspects of human nature—Movies and games that promote violence and prejudice, Cartoons, paintings…etc that push the envelope of shock and disgust in order to draw attention, Architecture that is made to display greed and status instead of beauty….We can be better than this and we should be better than this…by being ethically conscious consumers and ethically conscious artists…..
LikeLike
The comment about the Pope—-The Pope was explaining the very normal reaction/feeling that if a person insulted his mother, he would want to punch him….but violence was wrong. He was advocating for civility and decency in discourse….and the acceptance that all human beings have some things they hold sacred….
LikeLike
The right to offend—-I have given this idea some thought and come to the conclusion that no one should have the right to offend—because it infringes on the more fundamental right— “right to dignity”. However, everyone must have the right to criticize.
The difference between the right to offend and the right to criticize is that of purpose and presumption of intent. The right to offend presumes an intent to offend and therefore its purpose is without merit. The right to criticize presumes an intent to highlight problems therefore its purpose (finding potential solutions) is of merit. The side-effect of criticism will be offense but the potential benefits offset/balance out this side-effect.
Ignorant criticism can be an opportunity to dispel ignorance/stereotypes…..constructive criticism can be an opportunity for progress and corrections
This nuance between offense and criticism is already understood in most western laws that provide recourse for defamation/libel. Western values of secularism/humanism/liberalism are based on the idea of the individual and its worth. Therefore, western laws generally uphold the right to dignity of the individual—but do not do so for the collective. Most religions advocate for the value/worth of both the individual and the collective—and this is where the discrepancy in justice arises……
LikeLike
@Speak out
///It looks from the photo that Charlie Hebdo’s staff was all white. Not a good idea to make fun of people of color and non-Christians without anyone on staff to say, “I don’t think that’s so funny” or “I really don’t think that’s necessary”.///
Two of the victims were born in Tunesia. One in Algeria. Most of them were non-christians themselves and made fun of christians.
So what is your point?
LikeLike
@ anon
You make some very good points, but I disagree on some nuances.
“Unjust laws and unequal socio-economic systems that benefit a small elite at the expense of the majority.”
Half-true. I think the problem is more preceived injustice. For example a siginficant part of the anti-muslim Pegida-protests in Dredsen are made out of well-educated and economically reasonably well-off people. It’s more a fear of loss that motivates them (and more identiy loss than meterial).
“Right now, people are choosing division—the idea of deciding what they are by projecting onto the “other” what they are not.”
I think identity always needs an “other” do form. A group can see what they are not, but they can’t see who they are.
“Therefore, western laws generally uphold the right to dignity of the individual—but do not do so for the collective.”
I genereally think it should stay that way. Just as public figures are lot less protected against insults, so should collectives and institutions. By default they have a lot of power (at least over their own members) and verbal hostility towards them should be legal without caveats.
LikeLike
@Kiwi – all of my ancestors were Christian. Your comment makes no sense.
And @anon – there is a HUGE difference between European Jews and Moslems resident in Europe in that the vast majority of European Jewish communities have been there for 9+ centuries. Most Moslems are foreign immigrants (1st 2nd and 3rd gen).
We need to make a distinction between stateless native minorities (in the USA: Blacks and Amerindians; Throughout Europe: Gypsies and Jews; In Germany: Sorbians; etc…)
Stated native minorities (Alsatians, Flemish, and Corsicans in France; South Tyroleans in Italy, etc…)
Foreign occupants (Algerians in France, Turks in Germany, Pakistanis in UK, Mexicans in America, etc…)
Because the proper way of dealing with each is different.
For stateless native minorities, they should be given citizenship for their respective country and allowed to stay.
For stated national minorities, they should be reunited with their rightful homeland (Alsace-Lorraine annexed by Germany, French Flanders annexed by Belgium, South Tyrol annexed by Austria, etc…)
Foreign occupants should be all sent back to their countries.
Now I know some people are mixed between a foreign occupant group and an indigenous group. These people should be given a test like the one that follows:
1. Is this person Christian?
2. Is this person’s native language the national language of the country they are resident in?
3. Is this person at least 75% the ethnicity of the country they are resident in?
4. Are all of this person’s given names in the language of the country they are resident in?
5. Does this person lack skills in the language of their foreign occupant ancestor?
If the answers to all of these questions are yes, then the person can stay.
For example
James Edward Chowdry – 1/4 Indian 3/4 English – speaks only English and a devoted member of his church – He can stay in Britain
Mehmet Cem Kemal – 3/4 Turkish 1/4 German – speaks Turkish natively and barely speaks German – Goes to a mosque every week and devoutly Moslem – He is sent back to Turkey, immediately.
LikeLike
@kartoffel
Perceived injustice—Yes some reactions are out of fear—I also agree with Nelson Mandela that generally hate is manufactured—-but these fears and perceptions occur in an environment where Capitalism seems not to be working—or at least, not giving the expected dividends—and where a secularist value system needs to adjust to the needs of diverse citizens many of whom are questioning if the system will meet their needs. Against this backdrop, there may be a perception among some Europeans that Muslims have clear, strong values and identities…….(actually, in a globalized world…Muslims are also struggling for their identities……).
In Asia, (political/economic) alternatives are being explored…..
Identity—No, identity (based on values) does not require negative projection onto “the other”. For example, The Islamic model encourages viewing the “self”(Individual) through multiple identities–beginning with being a member of the family, then extending to neighborhood, then to the larger community, then to the nation/state and finally ending with the brotherhood of humanity. These identities of the “self” from micro to macro are bound by the concept of rights and responsibilities (…these make up the principles/value system)
Rights of the collective—-A wholistic approach to value systems must take care of both the individual and the collective (society) because human beings are inherently social—Principles of law or ethics that only take care of one aspect are unbalanced. IMO, the erosion of identity is partially due to this imbalance in secularism……
Power—Your point is important—it is necessary to have a balance of power in society—a good balance of power promotes a healthier society than one that has an imbalanced power structure. But abuse of power is a systemic and structural problem. Different value system will come up with their own solutions to this problem—The Islamic system solves this by balancing of responsibilities and rights….that is, those (Individual and collective) who have more privilege/power have more responsibilities/obligations towards others and those who have less power/privileges have less responsibilities /obligations …..This way, the concept of equality (all are of equivalent worth) is not infringed upon……
LikeLike
@ Bobby M
The example set by the Prophet Mohammed was so much better!!!!
When the Meccan Muslims were kicked out of Mecca, they left without any of their possessions—they were destitute. (also the Meccans were mostly traders but the people of Medina/Yathrib were agricultural….). The Prophet instituted a system of mentorship in which a Medinian family would care for a Meccan family—both would learn each others ways and customs so that tolerance and respect would be promoted in the community. This avoided the problem of gettoization and alienation. It also promoted a sense of unity and identity for all members of the community both Meccan and Medinian…….A new community was born…..
The reality is that we as human communities are always evolving and changing—even from generation to generation….If we recognize this aspect…we will be better equipped to build tolerant, flexible, just and compassionate societies……
LikeLike
More news:
The French-Algerian artist, Zoulikha Bouabdellah, withdrew the work from an exhibition in a northern Paris suburb with a large Muslim population after an Islamic group told local authorities it could provoke “uncontrollable, irresponsible incidents”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11374899/Blasphemous-artwork-removed-from-Paris-exhibition.html
As the artist tells herself:
“I am of muslim heritage ; my intention is not to shock , nor provoke but rather to propose a vision that will lead to dialogue. This vision concerns the connections between profane and sacred spaces , sacred as it concerns the place of women on the threshold of two worlds – because here the modernity of women is reconcilable with Islam, under the condition that the latter is not perverted to become an instrument of domination.
“Silence” was made in 2007- 2008 and has been exhibited many times in the United States , in Germany and more recently in France , without any controversy disturbing its presentation. Also, I question the reasons which push a certain fringe of French muslims to interpret this work as blasphemous . Neither the Koran , nor any surah or hadith nor sahib make reference to any interdiction concerning the cutting or appropriation of a rug “
http://www.loeildelaphotographie.com/2015/01/28/news/27115/clichy-zoulikha-bouabdellah-s-silence-taken-down-when-fear-becomes-censorship
Now, who dares to say that it are the evil racist white French who are using their power against marginalized muslems?
LikeLike
@ Kartoffel
correction
“concept of rights and responsibilities (…these make up the principles/value system)” should read…concepts of rights and responsibilities (and these are derived from the principles/value systems)…..
my apologies for this confusion….
LikeLike
Or that it is good to know that Ms. Bouabdellah is the “racist, islamophobic enemy”?
LikeLike
@ Jeff
It may simply be an over-reaction to recent events in France (nonetheless, does not make it right)
….but there was another work circulating on the internet sometime ago with high heels on the Quran….so high heels on a rug may have caused an over reaction….?……
Many years ago–there were incidents in the west where women were posed almost nude in a partial niqab (Niqab=face veil)—when a Muslim artist exploring womanhood and Islam made art-work with herself in a Niqab holding a bra/lingerie…a big fuss was made….even though the artwork had nothing to do with those who were misusing the Niqab…….perhaps the over reaction would not have occurred without the previous provocations….at any rate…such incidents provide an opportunity for the Muslim communities to reflect and dialogue so as to promote tolerance and flexibility……..
LikeLike
@ anon
I withdraw a bit from what I said about identity. I think identity grows a lot stronger under the experience of “others” and I also think that only than a identity becomes important.
“The Islamic system solves this by balancing of responsibilities and rights….that is, those (Individual and collective) who have more privilege/power have more responsibilities/obligations towards others and those who have less power/privileges have less responsibilities /obligations ”
In regards of the protection from insult/criticism this is unpracitcal. The protection rules would always be made by the powerful, which would result in the protection of the most powerful institutions and collectives. I would rather have no protection for everybody.
LikeLike
@Kiwi – There is no need for ad hominem attacks.
In your case it’s warranted.
@anon:
You are wasting your time with these racist clowns. Rewind the tape 50, 100, 200, 800 years, etc, it’s the same arguments being spewed against a particular group. The names, places and wording is different. You have the patience of Job, I’ll give you that!
LikeLike
@ Herneith – do you realize Moslems enslaved many more Africans than Whites? And they were far more brutal as well?
LikeLike
Bobby, I have no wish to discuss your S&M proclivities:
do you realize Moslems enslaved many more Africans than Whites? And they were far more brutal as well?
Otherwise Whippty do. You are a rabid racist and will get no serious response from me. Not so long ago you would have been promulgating the same crap about black people or some racialized group or religion. Same sh#t different toilet bowl. This goes for all your ilk.
LikeLike
@Bobby M
LOL@”do you realize Moslems enslaved many more Africans than Whites?”
How charmingly ignorant. As if Muslims can’t be white. In fact, the US Gov’t classifies most Muslim immigrants (those from N. Africa and the Middle East) as white.
Do you realise that white Muslims enslaved just as many Europeans as Africans? John Smith was one of them.
LikeLike
From Pumpkin:
I think that Hebdo appears to be a very ignorant magazine that has to rely on shock humor and vulgarism to sell issues. I wonder, why don’t these “satirical magazines,” poke fun at racist white people ever? If they’re trying to be socially-conscious and innovative and hip/liberal, why exclude racist, over-privileged white folks, such as themselves?
It wasn’t right to go in and shoot them obviously, but they should have known they were going to piss people off sooner or later. I am sad for the people who were injured/lost lives, but there should be something to learn from this.
Also the cartoons mocking religious figures were just stupid, millions of people will remember the religious figures for generations and thousands of years to come, no one will remember Hebdo 100 years from now.
LikeLike
From Pumpkin:
also just to add, i am getting sick of the “i am _x_ meme,” that’s so stupid…most of the time people aren’t whoever or whatever that particular meme is…
privilege white folks saying “i am charlie kebob,” so you’re a bigot?
LikeLike
@Abagond
To Charlie Hebdo’s credit, it does poke fun at FN leader Le Pen, if you consider her racist:
LikeLike
To Abagond (repeating Pumpkin):
I wonder, why don’t these “satirical magazines,” poke fun at racist white people ever?
As Jeff Elberfeld pointed out the French right and various racists were often targeted by Charlie Hebdo. This cover is pretty clear:
LikeLike
@abagond
Also the cartoons mocking religious figures were just stupid, millions of people will remember the religious figures for generations and thousands of years to come, no one will remember Hebdo 100 years from now.
In Africa, lots of people are dying of aids, yet the Vatican forbids them to use condoms.
In Europe, a lot of people are traumatized because of the sexual abuse of catholic clerics, yet the Vatican protected the molesters.
In the 1950s, after the Holocaust, nuns taught my mother that she shouldn’t trust jews, since “they had killed Jesus.”
And you say those nuns, those people in the Vatican, or their symbols shouldn’t be mocked?
You disappoint me, Abagond.
LikeLike
And for the rest: thank you resw77 and Uncle Milton! 🙂
Let me try to show the Charlie Hebdo-stance on racial profiling:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/123844/large/MRAP-CABU.jpg?1421006756
LikeLike
@ Jeff
That comment was by Pumpkin.
What I said was:
Something you yourself commented on.
LikeLike
@ Jeff Elberfeld @ Uncle Milton @ resw77
I liked that cartoon. A lot. I was going to put it in this post, but I could not verify whether Charlie Hebdo printed it. I used the “Goliath” one instead, which I also like.
As to their printing cartoons that mock the National Front, I pointed that out myself in the post. But, given that the National Front is well to the right, I do not see such cartoons as proof of any strong stand against racism in general:
LikeLike
I see. Thanks for the clarification.Then I apologize and take back and regret what I said about you.
But not the part that was written concerning Pumpkin’s comment.
LikeLike
As to their printing cartoons that mock the National Front, I pointed that out myself in the post. But, given that the National Front is well to the right, I do not see such cartoons as proof of any strong stand against racism in general:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/racist-uncles/
I know that Charb did oppose the anti-immigration-policies of the Sarkozy-administration, but I do not know if that is what you mean.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
“Most of them were non-christians themselves and made fun of christians.”
Those “non-christians” were from Christian backgrounds. It’s not the same thing to make fun of your own religious background that is hegemonic in your continent as to make fun of the religion of people of color who immigrated to your country due to the legacy of your people colonizing them until they had to wage war to throw you out.
To think it’s hip and satirical to draw the images of Muhammed above requires willful ignorance of white French people’s role in violently colonizing the Maghrib, as well as white people’s role in government-sanctioned sexual violations of Muslim prisoners in the last 15 years. The Algerians violently overthrew the French colonizers from 1954-1962, around the same time people of color, mostly Black, were fighting for civil rights here in the U.S.
LikeLike
Well Moslems resident in France don’t belong. Let’s hope that mockery and attacks on them continue until they all go home
LikeLike
To continue my last post, it’s a completely colonial attitude to not be able to respect that for a colonized people it’s important not to depict religious figures or God. It’s a completely white colonial thing to not be able to stand people of color making the rules or creating the concepts or marking boundaries AT ALL. Hence white people throwing a fit over Muslim women veiling themselves so the white male gaze can’t access them, hence white people throwing a fit over articles about white privilege starting to appear in the mainstream media.
It’s complete willful ignorance for white French people from Christian backgrounds on a hegemonic white Christian continent to say, it’s ok that we disrespect Muslims because we also disrespect Christians. How many of us people of color would be ok with white people drawing racist cartoons about PoC in a magzine that also publishes white-drawn racist cartoons about white people?
Regarding free speech, how many of us think the Redskin’s name and mascot are ok, or should be changed because there’s no need to disrespect and hurt a people who have already been horribly violated on so many levels?
LikeLike
To Symphonic Zambophones:
Take the hint already, Europe: Depicting Mohammed is to Muslims what the N-word is to black Americans. It’s offensive, outrageous and hurtful to them. Why do you do it?
At least until the 17th century (and even in some contemporary Muslim art) the portrayal of Muhammed was not forbidden.
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/
LikeLike
@Speak Out
“It’s complete willful ignorance for white French people from Christian backgrounds on a hegemonic white Christian continent to say, it’s ok that we disrespect Muslims because we also disrespect Christians.”
No, there’s really no difference between Charlie Hebdo’s mockery of Islam and Christianity. I really don’t understand your support for a double standard simply because these people supposedly have “Christian backgrounds.” I come from a Christian background, and I have just as much disdain for Christianity as any other major religion.
France is a secular country, where most people are not religious, and people should be able to make fun of whomever. Unfortunately, they have to accept accept the consequences for their actions.
LikeLike
I know historically it was reversed, but currently it is the Moslems colonizing France.
The French no longer keep Moslem nations in check like they used to.
@Speak Out – stop standing up for Moslems. They don’t belong in the West. We [White Christians] don’t belong in the Middle East either.
LikeLike
^Clearly Bobby M hasn’t heard the news that France has military bases in Mali, Niger, Chad, Djibouti, Burkina Faso–all majority Muslim countries.
LikeLike
@Kartoffel
identity (belonging/grouping)—Yes, I agree. The function of language/words itself is to define/identify. ex–The definition of “chair” excludes other furniture that does not fit the criteria….also human beings are social….so, in this aspect, conceptions of the other are inescapable….
“In regards of the protection from insult/criticism this is unpracitcal. The protection rules would always be made by the powerful, which would result in the protection of the most powerful institutions and collectives. I would rather have no protection for everybody.”
You make an interesting point……but….
Perhaps you have somewhat misdiagnosed the problem of abuse of power? For example, In the U.S., powerful institutions use individuals called lobbyists to get their agendas and laws. So, taking power away from institutions does not necessarily “solve” the problem of abuse—instead it may create extra problems because Unions—such as labour Unions are also institutions…..but your point about law is also correct—that is, abuse of power would not occur unless the laws allowed for it……
If abuse of power is a systemic problem—applying different principles for different areas in dealing with the individual and collective may not be the wisest course…?….It is a large and complex issue……
LikeLike
@abagond are you trying to be fair and balanced vis a vis reposting the danish one and all those clearly offensive hebdo covers?
Not sure a bit polemic…
LikeLike
Looking at the Twitter heat map, I find it interesting that Java was glowing just as bright as Europe, even though it is overwhelmingly Muslim.
Part of it could be due to its huge population – 145 million squeezed into an island the size of England or Alabama.
But, there must be some other explanation. Why Indonesia and not the other majority Muslim nations.
LikeLike
@ jefe
One possible explanation may be that many countries do not understand the concept of “free speech” because they have never had it—Outside of the West—speech is generally limited…..
But in Malaysia and Indonesia there were national conversations about the use and abuse of the word Allah.—to explain—-
The Christians (Catholics) use the Arabic word “Allah” in their local language bibles. (…even though the local language has a word for “God”). This had not been a problem until (in recent years) some Evangelical missionaries began to abuse the use of Allah by using it for deception. Some in Malaysia and Indonesia thought it appropriate to ban the use of Allah by non-Muslims—others disagreed…pointing out that (Arab) Christians had been using “Allah” before Islam came about…..
…so it may be that they had a better grasp of what was going on…?….
but I could be wrong……
LikeLike
@anon
Can you connect some dots for me?
Are you saying that people in Indonesia (in particular Java) do or do not understand the concept of Free Speech? And how is this related to “Je Suis Charlie”?
BTW, Malaysia was much less lit up, as were the other islands in Indonesia, but Singapore looks very bright, as one might expect. But I wondered why Java was an outlier in the region.
All of these places were former colonies of Western Europe.
LikeLike
@Speak Out
To continue my last post, it’s a completely colonial attitude to not be able to respect that for a colonized people it’s important not to depict religious figures or God. It’s a completely white colonial thing to not be able to stand people of color making the rules or creating the concepts or marking boundaries AT ALL.
White colonials?
“White colonials” like French-Algerian artist, Zoulikha Bouabdellah, who I mentioned above?
Or like “white colonial” like Saudi blogger Badawi, sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail in Saudi Arabia, which was never colonized by any westtern country?
Or like Salman Rushdie, a “white colonial” who got Kashmiri roots?
Or Soora Heera? Or Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
And then it is you who is talking about “complete willful ignorance!”
And what rules are you talking about? In France, you have the French law. That is enough. Why then should French people be submitted to other rules they never have chosen or voted for?
LikeLike
I doubt that there are any societies who don’t understand the concept of free speech. Some might reject it, but everyone understands it (except for a few isolated societies who haven’t been in contact with the political thought of the last 200 years, but that is defintitly not the case in the Islamic World).
LikeLike
@ jefe
not sure if connecting the dots is wise—this is just a wild theory…..but the difference (Malaysia/Indonesia) may be because of domestic politics—and sometimes in the struggle for identity—artificial differentiation from the “other” is the easier, simpler way—and so, politically, more usable.
As for Singapore, speech is limited and controlled…..so possibly domestic politics may have had something to do with it….Media is controlled by the government so how Singaporeans understood the issue would have effected their attitude…?….just guessing……
and….just saying….the colonial experience did not bring with it the freedoms that the West takes for granted…..
LikeLike
@ Kartoffel
I meant to say “Western concept of free speech”—that is—the degree to which the West considers speech to be free…..for much of the rest of the world, limitations on “free-speech” is normal….
LikeLike
@anon,
Seems like we are talking about 2 different things here. I was talkihg about Java in particular. It is brightly lit while sumatra, borneo and the other islands of Indonesia were relatively dark, as well as most of the Arab and other majority Muslim countries. I was wondering if there was anything about Java itself, beyond the fact of is large population and degree of urbanisation.
I wasn’t talking about Malaysia and Singapore, but since you brought them up, I do expect them to be brighter than Indonesia (which they are, except for Java).
Malaysia is barely a muslim minority. Priority to the split off of Singapore it was not majority muslim. But Malaysia is very protective of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims, such that they apply different laws to different segments of the population, which might affect freedom of Speech. Singapore is very politically controlled, but of all the places, it is the most westernized and many of its political and business elite is foreign (ie, western) educated. I actually expect them to have a bright heat map.
But, I was not really talking about Singapore and Malaysia. Their heat map did not surprise me. Neither did Indonesia outside of Java. But Java did.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
You’re right. Instead, the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia’s brutal regime by lining the royal family’s pockets with oil money and selling armaments to their military.
Exactly!
You can hardly call the Saudi royal family a “weak and marginalised minority group,” who must be “granted the privilege of some protections” against “powerful and privileged” bloggers/bullies like Badawi.
Yet still, the Saudis react almost as fierce as the Charlie Hebdo attackers. Therefore I do not buy the “muslems in France are marginalized”-argument that is present by some here..
LikeLike
Moslems do not belong in the west
LikeLike
Wow, Jeff Elberfeld. You don’t think it’s a stretch comparing the Saudi royal family who live comfortably in their palaces in Saudi Arabia without the need to work to Muslims who live in France and have to find jobs, find housing and get loans from racists and Islamophobes like you and Bobby M?
LikeLike
According to this article on the very weekend that millions marched in for Charlie Hebdo, Boko Haram massacred about 2,000 Nigerians, and there was nary a peep in the Western media. Nor were there declarations against terrorism or shows of solidarity; there wasn’t, in fact, a decent yawn in the West.
The comparative worth of non-White lives, at least in the media, again rears its ugly head.
LikeLike
Oops. I see you covered this on 1/15. My bad.
LikeLike
@Bobby M
“@Speak Out – stop standing up for Moslems. They don’t belong in the West. We [White Christians] don’t belong in the Middle East either.”
Interesting how it bothers you that an American would stand up for Muslims. Sorry to break it to you, but the French Muslims who you think don’t belong in ‘the West’ relate to people of color in the U.S. They learn about our history and speak up for us against ignorant white Americans. I’ve seen it. We Americans of color also get told that we don’t belong in the U.S. We also are suffering from the colonial legacy and the worldwide racial system of white supremacy that it imposed.
LikeLike
@resw77
“No, there’s really no difference between Charlie Hebdo’s mockery of Islam and Christianity. I really don’t understand your support for a double standard simply because these people supposedly have “Christian backgrounds.” I come from a Christian background, and I have just as much disdain for Christianity as any other major religion.”
That’s great, but it’s not the same thing to express disdain for your own religious background as it is to express disdain for other religions adhered to by people of color that your ancestors colonized. Christians in the U.S. and Europe have Christian privilege in the religious hierarchy just like whites have white privilege in the racial hierarchy.
LikeLike
@Speak Out
No, it is the same thing for me to express disdain for Christianity as I would for any other religion of which I had knowledge. I’m no longer Christian, as it is a matter of CHOICE, not imposed or biological in nature. Therefore I as a non-Christian have 0% Christian privilege in this society….neither does a supposedly secular magazine that wishes to poke fun of both Christianity and Islam.
A double standard is a double standard.
LikeLike
i’ve been having some problems posting here — but this is kind of my ‘south park’ argument i’ve been proposing here, is it relevant to portray or lampoon hate in the effort to disprove or attempt to refuse or resist?
vis a vis the ‘world war zimmerman’ episode:
(http://vimeo.com/98566038)
it’s the same thing, except they did bring up the pictorial depiction of the prophet muhammed, and how that and pictures while your praying are not allowed, etc., so i find it curious and polemic of abagond’s treatment of this subject, but south park did not go this far as hebdo.
is this a further comment on ‘brown’ people of the ‘mideast’ (sorry) against licentious western values that is implied by the opening paragraph of this article; however, showing the danish picture is rather bold.
LikeLike
This is the first i have seen of those cartoons and they are disgusting and vile. Pretty nausea inducing, so very offensive.
LikeLike
@ v8driver
By the editorial standards of this blog, Charlie Hebdo would count as a racist troll. But just as I let racist trolls say their piece so that everyone can see how bad they are, so I show Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons too. When I do posts on Jim Crow racism, I show the images there too. Not to offend but to inform, to know your enemy and what they are about deep down. Official Sources of Information in the US are heavily sanitized and flush things down the memory hole.
In the case of the Danish cartoon, Charlie Hebdo was taken to court for printing it. The court said that Charlie Hebdo was not equating Islam with terrorism – yet that is just what the Danish cartoon does!!! I had to show it to make that clear.
LikeLike
@Speak Out – there’s a huge difference between the Anglophone, mostly Christian Black Americans, the vast majority of whom have families who have lived in the USA for 3 centuries or more and Algerian Moslems resident in France – Most speak Arabic better than French, all are Moslem (not Catholic, the traditional French Religion) and have roots that are less than 60 years old in France.
LikeLike
freedom to offend—because of the historical trajectory of the West and its relationship with religion—some people seem to think that freedom to offend means freedom to offend religion—-but today, the most powerful insitution in the West is not the Church but the Government and since it decides what is law—it can arbitrarily and discriminately/selectively apply laws to those whose views it finds offensive….
So, the West has people such as Manning, Assange, Snowden, it has journalists such as Greenwald who have been harrassed (because of his views on free speech), it has “lists” of people whose views it finds offensive and are not allowed in the country—(American Media were not allowed to air the views of bin Laden)—those in the country whose views it finds offensive are arrested—such as the 50+ arrrests made in France for offensive speech after Hebdo attacks…..others are killed—(apparently American Gov killed an anti-Drone protestor outside of the U.S. —another American citizen was also killed because of his views). Pro-Palestine views are often shut down in Universities—in France a pro-Palestine March was not allowed…..
So, “free speech” is simply a political tool used by Western Governments for their own political purposes….and the citizens of the West are too blind to understand their “cherished value” is only an illusion…..
LikeLike
Another current post quite in keeping with the current themes of your blog.
And I think the actual pictures taken from the publication in question are necessary in this post for a full discussion of this issue.
As to my view on this event and issue I’d say the french in general on this issue are hypocritical and deluded.
As to people’s alleged right of free expression – everything has limits.
I’m an atheist and while I’m confident in the wisdom of my views I know it would be extremely dangerous for me to make the statement – I’m an atheist – in numerous locations and publications around the world especially around and amongst any devout and passionate religious group of people.
And it would be extremely unreasonable for me to consider it otherwise.
Indeed this seems to me similar to adult infintilism where full grown adults think they can say and do anything they please without consequence.
Also allegedly the french revolution was suppose to be about enlightenment allegedly meaning gaining improving and spreading knowledge and civility.
I don’t see any thing informative or civil about any of those cartoons.
I’ve myself in private have considered the tradeoffs of selectively using a type of profanity common in less formal and professional sitings.
What if and how far do you think I could get using blatant profanity and disrespect in the course of almost every comment I do here and every where else I comment?
How about on the street , at my job , with my friends and family etc.
how long and how likely before I lose my job ,my friends ,my family and eventually my life?
What part of accountability ,limitation respect and consideration of others do I not want to or am unable to understand?
This seems more about european white impunity and non-accountability than anything else.
Should those people have been killed and is killing justified in the face of extreme disrespect and abuse – The obvious answer is YES.
And for those who say NO – image if it was you family member,loved one ,identity ,something you really care about ………
LikeLike
“In the case of the Danish cartoon, Charlie Hebdo was taken to court for printing it. The court said that Charlie Hebdo was not equating Islam with terrorism – yet that is just what the Danish cartoon does!!! I had to show it to make that clear.”
When are we going to learn courts are just another human construct staffed by humans and if they are of the same dominant group then they will not in general prosecute i.e. hold accountable members of their own group regards of evidence.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why people believe that because of freedom of speech you are above criticism: those aren’t mutually exclusive. Further perpetuating the racist and discriminatory beliefs of an existing society (that oppresses certain groups because of these ideologies) is not at all equivalent to satire. Of course these people may not have deserved to die, but for people to say that they died in the name of satire is really next level. Really appreciated this post!
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
Why stop there? The Al Qaeda gunmen showed even more courage than either Charlie Hebdo or Internet trolls.
LikeLike
@resw77 @kiwi
Wow, Jeff Elberfeld. You don’t think it’s a stretch comparing the Saudi royal family who live comfortably in their palaces in Saudi Arabia without the need to work to Muslims who live in France and have to find jobs, find housing and get loans from racists and Islamophobes like you and Bobby M?
No. What I meant to say was: whether you are a marginalized muslem in France or a filthy rich, USA-backed member of the Saudi royal family, the chances you react violently to perceived doubts/insults on your belief is somewhat equal.
And then it doesn’t matter where the perceived insult is coming from.
LikeLike
@abagond
In the case of the Danish cartoon, Charlie Hebdo was taken to court for printing it. The court said that Charlie Hebdo was not equating Islam with terrorism – yet that is just what the Danish cartoon does!!! I had to show it to make that clear.
Eh, no. The Danish cartoon “was an attempt to expose those fanatics who have justified a great number of bombings, murders and other atrocities with reference to the sayings of their prophet.”
Just read it for yourself at http://dailyprincetonian.com/opinion/2009/10/why-i-drew-the-cartoon-the-muhammad-affair-in-retrospect/
And I don’t understand how you consider gunmen who massacre people who use their hands only to draw pictures “courageous.” Nor do I understand what is courageous in shooting people who are only armed with a shopping lists containing the kosher food they want to eat that evening.
LikeLike
@ Jeff
The Al Qaeda gunmen had to deal with two police officers and then expect a nationwide if not worldwide manhunt. That takes a bit more courage than drawing a cartoon.
LikeLike
@ Jeff
You seemed to have missed the point of the marginalization argument. It was not about the actions of the marginalized but of the privileged.
LikeLike
@ Jeff
The full quote about the bomb-in-the-turban cartoon is:
The cartoonist meant to equate Islam with “bombings, murders and other atrocities” to see how Muslims would react. It was not meant as satire but as an accusation. It was meant just the way it seems, there is nothing subtle about it.
LikeLike
LIGHT-ARMED-police-officers, that is. As for the manhunt: since those Al-Quada-guys calculate to be martyred, there is nothing courageous in their actions. For example, Mohammed Bouyeri (Theo van Gogh’s killer) shot at the police after they tried to arrest him. He already had his farewell-poem on him.
Unfortunately for him, he was only shot in the leg.
What I intend to say: if you don’t fear death, you do not have to be courageous to overcome your fear.
And I do indeed miss the point about the marginalized / privileged argument.
I do not believe that the Algerian Zoulikha Bouabdellah is privileged. Nor do I believe that Khomeini was less privileged than Salman Rushdie. Nor do I believe that Iranian-born artist Sooreh Hera is such a privileged person. (see http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Hague-museum-pulls-offensive-Muslim-art/2007/12/03/1196530582874.html )
All these cases are not a matter of “the racist privileged white guys” vs “the poor marginalized muslems.” It is about freedom-loving artists vs repressive religious bigots.
LikeLike
@Mbeti
“When are we going to learn courts are just another human construct staffed by humans and if they are of the same dominant group then they will not in general prosecute i.e. hold accountable members of their own group regards of evidence.”
Exactly. The ability to walk into a courtroom in which everyone employed there (judge, DA, “public defender”, court staff, police officers) is white (and almost always male) while almost everyone being prosecuted is a person of color (and people of color in chains are paraded in and made to watch but forbidden to make contact with anybody) and to not see anything wrong is white privilege to the hilt.
LikeLike
@Mbeti
“Should those people have been killed and is killing justified in the face of extreme disrespect and abuse – The obvious answer is YES.”
I don’t agree with this. Drawing disrespectful cartoons is not justification for murder. I do agree that telling yourself that publishing disrespectful cartoons of a marginalized group’s religion, especially in a way that violates that religion’s tenets, is satire is delusion characteristic of white colonialism.
Kind of like white people in the U.S. made a “national monument” by carving their leader’s faces into mountains sacred to Native Americans.
LikeLike
@resw77
Do you admit to having any kind of privilege at all in this world, in any category?
LikeLike
“Should those people have been killed and is killing justified in the face of extreme disrespect and abuse – The obvious answer is YES.”
That’s what the Dueling tradition of Europe was about—when there were no defamation laws—an affront to one’s honor was solved by guns…..
The West has moved beyond that now—but laws—and the ethico-moral principles (if any) that they may be based on, are inconsistent and partial (favoring one group of people more than others)
This Metanarrative that some are (by right) more entitled than others is very much embedded in Western “values”. Western education reinforces this myth. So, some Muslim thinkers and scholars had suggested that it is not enough that the land become independent of colonization—but the mind also must be de-colonized…..
LikeLike
Some in the West do think that a person who coldly and remorselessly “kills the enemy” is a hero—according to comments about American Sniper….
also…killing “enemy” civilians is a long time “Western value”—-the British bombed German cities in WW2, Americans did it to Japan and the tradition was carried on in recent wars—according to some people, 60% of the casualties of recent Western war misadventures were civilians….
LikeLike
The shock doctrine…
LikeLike
I will need to watch American sniper to put it into better context, but the American logic is that killing some odd civilians are a necessary evil. They rationalize the victims as possible terrorist.
LikeLike
Bombing Dresden was evil. but bombing Japan was necessary
LikeLike
Speak Out said “Exactly. The ability to walk into a courtroom in which everyone employed there (judge, DA, “public defender”, court staff, police officers) is white (and almost always male) while almost everyone being prosecuted is a person of color (and people of color in chains are paraded in and made to watch but forbidden to make contact with anybody) and to not see anything wrong is white privilege to the hilt.”
Agreed and I would also say its – racism – white privilege is the result of the practice of racism.
Speak Out said “I don’t agree with this. Drawing disrespectful cartoons is not justification for murder. ”
I understand the sentiment and I not saying it justify’s such actions ,I saying humans have limitations and its unreasonable to provoke any person or group and not expect a violent response from some.
There are people you can disrespect in almost any way imaginable and the will still not be provoked then there are other with whom the merest slight is dangerous.
I find it quite annoying that because a few violent Muslims acted violently ALL Muslims are now held accountable.
When was the last time this unrealistic and silly logic was applied to all Christan whenever a Christian sect did something violent?
rarely if ever and maybe because white Christians are in the most dominate and privileged position in the world currently ,the owners and staff of cnn,abc,cbs,nbc,fox,npr etc
LikeLike
anon said “This Meta narrative that some are (by right) more entitled than others is very much embedded in Western “values”. Western education reinforces this myth. So, some Muslim thinkers and scholars had suggested that it is not enough that the land become independent of colonization—but the mind also must be de-colonized…..”
Quite insightful I agree.
LikeLike
“I find it quite annoying that because a few violent Muslims acted violently ALL Muslims are now held accountable.”
I also find it annoying and prejudicial to be asked to apologize for the actions of the criminals—BUT it is helpful when Muslims transgress limits—that we are asked to critically re-examine our values. It is also helpful when the voices of Muslim scholars who condemn bad actions and reaffirm correct values are listened to by the media. What is unfair is that, in the West, the same bad actions by the West cannot be condemned—making this an inconsistent and lopsided exercise.
Some good advice from the Quran….
3:104 Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: They are the ones to attain felicity.
It is important that we all help each other become good as people and as communities and nations.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
“No. What I meant to say was: whether you are a marginalized muslem in France or a filthy rich, USA-backed member of the Saudi royal family, the chances you react violently to perceived doubts/insults on your belief is somewhat equal.”
WTF. How does one calculate the chances of reacting violently to insults on one’s faith? And what are the chances like for Christians to react as violently as Anders Behring Breivik, Larry McQuilliams, the Army of God, etc.?
@Bobby M
“Most speak Arabic better than French, all are Moslem ”
You have no clue what you’re talking about.
@Speak Out
“Do you admit to having any kind of privilege at all in this world, in any category?”
None due to my Christian upbringing. When people look at me, they cannot tell that I used to be a Christian, as it is not a biological or aesthetic concept.
One privilege I have in the job market is the potential to earn more than average due to my academic and professional credentials. But then there are disadvantages that can outweigh said advantage as well, such as my appearance and age. But that’s irrelevant to the ability of a secular magazine to poke fun at both Islam and Christianity.
LikeLike
Moslems just don’t belong in Christian Europe.
One Country, One People, One Language
LikeLike
There are political aspects to this issue—Insulting the Prophet plays into the perception that the West is at war with Islam/Muslims Globally. Demonizing the West (Just as some in the West and other countries, demonize Muslims for political reasons) is convenient for some Muslim-majority countries….Muslims are also minorities in some Non-Western countries. BRICS is one bloc that wants to move away from the “Western alliance”…a general anti-West sentiment is also convenient for them…..
There is also another aspect—Islam/Muslims are diverse but when the Prophet is insulted…it works to unify the global community in a new way….this new awareness of the global Muslim community as an “Ummah” is an interesting phenomenon…This sense of global Islam has always been there in the Hajj—but now the idea of a “war on Islam” symbolized by the insult to the Prophet makes this sentiment stronger….I hope that this sense of Unity will be used in positive ways to find global solutions to problems of socio-economic injustice, power imbalances and corruption…..
LikeLike
Paul talks about his take on this at the 6:45 or so mark (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g36Ef5Fvkok#t=426)
LikeLike
@Kiwi – I’m not retarded. I know Europe has many countries. I meant “One Country, One People, One Language” for each individual European Country. One Religion as well.
Ex:
Germany, Germans, German, Christianity
France, Frenchmen, French, Catholicism
England, Englishmen, English, Anglicanism
Not
Germany, Germans and Turks, German and Turkish, Christianity and Islam
France, Frenchmen and Algerians, French and Arabic, Catholicism and Islam
England, English and Pakis, English and Urdu, Anglicanism and Islam
Moslems don’t belong in the West. Period. Full stop.
LikeLike
@Bobby
What do you consider the west?
LikeLike
@resw77
Do you think that you have no privilege from your family who were/are openly Christian?
Do you think that half-white people have no white privilege in terms of family background even if they don’t “look white”?
Do you think that none of the following categories of privilege apply to you: male privilege, straight privilege, cisgender privilege, able-bodied privilege, U.S. citizenship privilege, first world privilege, etc.?
LikeLike
Anyone who wants to see an example of REAL satire, listen to this radio clip of an Asian American intern in Sacramento pointing out a white woman’s privilege in dealing with the police vs. the experience of Black people:
http://media.endonline.com/a/101538367/incredible-interviews-with-intern-kevin.htm
It’s funny like Ali G’s interviews, but where it’s coming from is so sad.
LikeLike
@Speak Out
“Do you think that you have no privilege from your family who were/are openly Christian?”
Again, I have no “Christian privilege,” certainly not from my family. I think their adoption of Christianity was a detriment. Maybe you can explain how that relates to a secular magazine’s “Christian privilege” and it’s ability to mock Christianity but not Islam.
“Do you think that half-white people have no white privilege in terms of family background even if they don’t “look white”?”
Only to the extent that their white parent/family had privilege. So while they’re benefiting from their parents’ privilege (mainly in the form of social status, transfer of wealth), at the end of the day, the majority of Americans admit to being anti-black, so if you look black then most Americans are prejudiced toward you.
“Do you think that none of the following categories of privilege apply to you: male privilege, straight privilege, cisgender privilege, able-bodied privilege, U.S. citizenship privilege, first world privilege”
If you read my last response to you, you’d see that I already acknowledged a privilege I enjoyed and, yes, I acknowledge others including some that you’ve listed. However, they can be easily outweighed by my physical appearance, gender and age in the U.S. and elsewhere. Are you basically implying that one has to be something in order to mock something? And how can you compare being something like a black woman and choosing to believe something like Christianity?
LikeLike
@resw77
You seem to me to be a person who doesn’t want to admit to having any significant privilege in this world. I don’t have much respect for people who won’t admit to having privilege, and I wouldn’t say that the factors you describe outweigh other privileges. Privilege is privilege, and everybody on this site is oppressed in some ways and privileged in others. You have to care about others who are different from you, who can see things you can’t, and who are suffering very badly in different ways.
LikeLike
@Speak Out
You seem to me to be a person who doesn’t read or reads selectively. I clearly acknowledged privileges I enjoy, and I don’t have any respect for people who hear only what they want to hear and discount that with which they don’t agree.
I’ve answered your questions fully and cordially, yet you’ve completely ignored mine, whilst exhibiting what a disrespectful hypocrite you are.
LikeLike
a good read for everyone:
“How to have a white privilege mindset:
1.Notice any small advantage blacks have while overlooking the even greater advantages of whites.
2.Blame all disadvantages blacks suffer from on them.
3.Use the Anything But Racism argument as needed.
4.Discount anything black people say. Only take what white people say seriously.
5.Never try to see anything from a black point of view.
You can replace “black” with “Latino”, “Native American”, “Muslim” and so on.
In fact, you can pretty much replace “white” and “black” with any privileged/marginalized pair: rich and poor, male and female, straight and gay, Christian and Jew, etc. Because it is not so much about race but power and how power affects thinking.”
LikeLike
Another good read:
“It is important to understand you have American privilege even if your life in America is not great; even if you belong to a discriminated group. Just as all whites have white privilege, even those who are poor, gay or non-Christian and therefore experience discrimination, so all Americans have American privilege.”
LikeLike
@ resw77
1. “No. What I meant to say was: whether you are a marginalized muslem in France or a filthy rich, USA-backed member of the Saudi royal family, the chances you react violently to perceived doubts/insults on your belief is somewhat equal.”
WTF. How does one calculate the chances of reacting violently to insults on one’s faith? And what are the chances like for Christians to react as violently as Anders Behring Breivik, Larry McQuilliams, the Army of God, etc.?
Eh, no. All I meant to say is that a violent reaction on perceived doubts/insults on your belief is not dependent on your social status, but rather on the way you are practicing your faith.
@ Speak Out
Anyone who wants to see an example of REAL satire…
Since when did you get the privilege to decide for the Earth and it’s inhabitants what is “REAL satire” and what isn’t? Such absolute claims disregard that humor is determined on on which place and time you are.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
“All I meant to say is that a violent reaction on perceived doubts/insults on your belief is not dependent on your social status, but rather on the way you are practicing your faith.”
Thanks. That’s actually a direct answer to my question. So what kind of “way you are practicing your faith” increases the chances of violent reactions to “doubts/insults on your belief,” and does the same apply to all religions?
“Since when did you get the privilege to decide for the Earth and it’s inhabitants what is “REAL satire” and what isn’t?”
Clearly Speak Out is God, who not only is the judge of what constitutes satire, but who’s allowed to use it.
LikeLike
An interesting NY Times article on the earliest Muslims in the U.S. (enslaved Muslims)
“The Muslims of Early America”
LikeLike
The media is promoting #MuslimLivesMatter but check out #withMuslims
LikeLike
@resw77
Thanks. That’s actually a direct answer to my question. So what kind of “way you are practicing your faith” increases the chances of violent reactions to “doubts/insults on your belief,” and does the same apply to all religions?
Interesting question. After re-reading my text, I see I used the words “faith” and “belief.” It would have been better if I had used the word “religion.”
A “faith” or “belief” implies at least some space for doubt.
However, if you regard your religion as an absolute truth, and demand absolute immunity from opposing viewpoints, then chances you react violently to perceived doubts/insults increases significantly.
This does apply to all religions. However, since Christians cannot maintain anymore that the religion as preached by the (for example) Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism contains the absolute truth, we see fewer violent acts in the name of their religion at the moment.
On the other hand, since Muslems do regard it as an absolute truth that the Quran is a book that was sent to us by the only god, though his messenger Muhammad, they still can react violently on perceived insults.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
“However, since Christians cannot maintain anymore that the religion as preached by…contains the absolute truth”
How did you make that determination? A 2014 Gallup poll found that 75% of Americans see the bible as the Word of God, and 28% think it should be taken literally. http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx
“we see fewer violent acts in the name of their religion at the moment”
Based on FBI data, in the US there are more violent acts in the name of Christianity than Islam, and more violent acts in the name of non-religious beliefs than for religious reasons. And despite Europe’s growing Muslim population, most terrorist acts are committed by separatists, not Muslim extremists.
LikeLike
Religiously motivated hate crimes in the US in 2009:
964 against Jews
128 against Muslims
55 against Catholics
40 against Protestants
10 against atheists, agnostics, etc.
Per 100,000 of the target population:
1,847 against Jews
695 against Muslims
7 against Catholics
3 against Protestants
2 against atheists, agnostics, etc.
Source:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/data/table_05.html
LikeLike
The bottom line is “you insult me, I kill you”. Violence should not be an answer in modern civilized culture and should be chastised regardless of who is doing it and why. No matter the insults hurled by Hebdo, these were only words.
LikeLike
@resw77
1: I could give you a well-founded argument on the “determination” I made, but I do not understand why that is necessary on this blog. Asking for such is seen as a common straw man argument over here. To paraphrase Abagond: “As if there is some special rule of English that “Chistians” always means “all Christians”.” See also https://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/the-not-all-whites-argument/
2. Indeed, most terrorist acts in Europe are committed by separatists, not Muslim extremists. However, these acts include spraying paint on the door of some ‘enemy,’ or some vague plans which might not have been serious.
However, if you look at the deadly attacks, then Islam rises up as the main motive to show courage by killing unarmed civillians, as it is said over here. See http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/01/daily-chart-8
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
” I could give you a well-founded argument on the “determination” …Asking for such is seen as a common straw man argument over here.”
You already gave your method of determination, i.e., based on one’s belief that one’s religious doctrine “contains the absolute truth,” however, when I gave some relevant poll data (relevant because we are actually comparing Islam to Christianity) and terrorism statistics (relevant because we are actually comparing Islamic extremist terrorism to other terrorism) to test that method, you cry straw man. LOL. Nothing but double standard.
“However, these acts include spraying paint on the door of some ‘enemy,’ or some vague plans which might not have been serious.”
They “include” a lot of things, but you’re discounting separatist terrorism in Europe as not “serious” when there have been many bombings and other “violent acts.” And the fact that Islamic extremists were more successful at killing than separatists has no bearing on the fact that separatist terrorism is more prevalent.
LikeLike
I see. Following Abagond’s line of reasoning is suddenly nit valid when not used on white people. And then it is me who uses a double standard.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
Yes, your double standard is that you think Muslims who believe their religious doctrine “contains absolute truth” have increased chances of acting violently, but you won’t hold to the same standard the many Christians who, according to polls, believe their religious doctrine “contains absolute truth.”
And btw, Abagond and I do not have the same mind, and you have not seen me justify Abagond’s “line of reasoning,”, whatever that may be, on this particular issue.
LikeLike