French magazine publishes controversial cartoons of Prophet Muhammad - many killed in revenge attack

[brogdale]

No.

Are you?

If you'd linked to it we be in a better position to judge what the article was saying. You said you agreed with the title, so I assume you're saying that they definitely didn't die as martyrs. But, presumably, you'd concede that some would disagree with that interpretation?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I disagree. Opposing such bans is a way of avoiding causing offense to Muslims and avoiding supporting progressive Muslim/ex-Muslim voices in a similar way self-censorship can be. There are some goofy arguments about how it is all voluntary but that ignores how individuals are products of the cultures they grow up in and there are some even goofier arguments about how it will alienate Muslims, which I won't dignify..

This has come up on here before wrt the veil bans. Opposing the ban is not the same as arguing that it's all voluntary and all fine. There is no contradiction between opposing a state-enforced ban on the veil and at the same time stating clearly that women wearing the veil are putting themselves in a subordinate position wrt the men in their community. By covering their faces in public, they deny themselves a political voice in public.

There are of course all kinds of pressures to conform and submit to such practices, so the idea of it being a free choice is hugely problematic. It is quite possible to state this and to oppose a ban. In this case, opposition to a ban would be similar to the kind of opposition I would cite to authoritarians like Ataturk. Pointing out the inherent contradiction in the position where the state dictates how people must live in order to be free.

 

[Knotted]

This has come up on here before wrt the veil bans. Opposing the ban is not the same as arguing that it's all voluntary and all fine.

Yes I know. But looking at it from a pragmatic point of view where the question of allowing space for progressive (let's stop being diplomatic and say atheistic) voices in the Muslim "community" it's a splendid idea. As I say there are other reasons to oppose such bans.

There are of course all kinds of pressures to conform and submit to such practices, so the idea of it being a free choice is hugely problematic. It is quite possible to state this and to oppose a ban.

Yup.

 

[ke$a]

.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Looked at from a pragmatic pov, Turkey had nearly a century of authoritarian secularism. The entire current population grew up with it. How has that worked? Has it changed any conservative minds?

 

[ke$a]

The people behind these evil attacks plan was to cause censorship of the French magazine, however it has totally backfired as:

"One million copies of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo will be published next week as French media and journalists vowed to ensure it is printed."

(Quote from The Independent)

A clear message to those who look to censor through terrorism or other abusive means.

 

[Knotted]

Looked at from a pragmatic pov, Turkey had nearly a century of authoritarian secularism. The entire current population grew up with it. How has that worked? Has it changed any conservative minds?

Well no it hasn't. I think the problem is a deeper one than anyone ever imagined.

 

[ferrelhadley]

Looked at from a pragmatic pov, Turkey had nearly a century of authoritarian secularism. The entire current population grew up with it. How has that worked? Has it changed any conservative minds?

Funny how often its difficult to tell a far left argument from a far right one.

 

[danny la rouge]

You can oppose hate speech laws and promote a moral commitment to self-censorship.

Of course you can. I don't think anyone suggested otherwise. The point is that there is a culture around what one is supposed to censor oneself about, and the assumptions behind a particular type of self censorship.

For me what is important with respect to freedom of speech is opposition to the state deciding what can and can't be said.

id agreement, but I'd add civil society to that - NGOs, trade unions, newspapers, and so on.

i take an anti-state position not a libertarian position.

I take both.

I promote self-censorship.

In what way? What do you mean by that? What is it that you'd like to say but don't?

Urban75 promotes self-censorship eg. racists don't last long here and mostly because they cause offense.

No it doesn't; it's a largely anti racist community, which has a range of people and a range of views on how to deal with racists, from non platform to ridicule and so on. It isn't a monothought bloc, and most of us aren't mods. And, incidentally, I don't think casting a racist out of a community constitutes "self censorship".

why disappear distinctions between criticism of religion and racism with bland statements in favour of freedom of speech?

I don't think anyone's done that. Quite the reverse.

Who's saying Charlie Hebdo brought it on themselves?

Lots of people, including some on the so called left. Even the Independent ran a piece saying CH bore some of the responsibility for what happened. As if the murderers had little agency in their actions.

They are allowed to dislike certain views. So am I. So are you. And we are allowed to criticise them for disliking certain views as well. Etc.

That's right - it's called free speech.

I disagree. Opposing such bans is a way of avoiding causing offence to Muslims

No, that's one motive for opposing a ban, but it isn't the only one, nor is it mine. I've argued this point on these boards before, and I'm in a minority on this, but that doesn't bother me - I dislike state bans on anything, even things I disapprove of (like cocaine). I think prohibition makes things worse, not better. I don't think prohibition of hijab does anything at all to combat misogyny in Muslim communities, and may even make things worse.

There are some goofy arguments about how it is all voluntary

I agree. I think the way is to work with initiatives coming from Muslim women, rather than trying to be a liberal "missionary".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Funny how often its difficult to tell a far left argument from a far right one.

Anti-authoritarian positions can be held by both right- and left-wing people. As can authoritarian ones. Mine is an anti-authoritarian left position. Maybe I'm not the right person to judge, but I think my posts make this pretty clear.

 

[Knotted]

We, you and I and most others here promote self-censorship for racists. I doubt racists would feel comfortable expressing their views here. This is the "moral commitment to censorship" that Kenan Malik is talking about. He limits it to "a belief that because we live in a plural society, so we must police public discourse about different cultures and beliefs, and constrain speech so as not to give offence" but there is a similar moral commitment to self censorship about race just as there is one about culture.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Racists don't last long if they express their views on here. They get banned. I'm not a mod, so it's not my decision who gets banned and for what. I'd probably make a bad mod as I wouldn't be banning many people, however I have been pleased when overt racists have been banned in the past. But these boards are not the whole society. Thinking that there should be limits placed on expression on here doesn't have to mean that you think those same limits should apply everywhere.

 

[Knotted]

But I think that's what Kenan Malik's point is. It isn't (just) about applying formal restrictions of speech across the board but having a culture about what can and can't be said in various institutions due to fears of causing offense.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But I think that's what Kenan Malik's point is. It isn't (just) about applying formal restrictions of speech across the board but having a culture about what can and can't be said in various institutions due to fears of causing offense.

Well a practice on here that's been growing recently has been the deleting of offensive posts in addition to the banning of offensive posters. That I don't like. I think we should be strong enough to allow the offence to remain in place, on the record, particularly as it is always made abundantly clear by posters jumping on it that most of us think it's wrong.

 

[ke$a]

If you'd linked to it we be in a better position to judge what the article was saying. You said you agreed with the title, so I assume you're saying that they definitely didn't die as martyrs. But, presumably, you'd concede that some would disagree with that interpretation?

Terrorists and supporters of terrorists may disagree with that interpretation.

 

[treelover]

The Establishment across the western world are now claiming to defend/uphold free speech: in London tomorrow, Trafalgar Sq and Tower Bridge will be decked in the Tricolour, I would hope civil society reminds them all of that when the next big protests: occupy, civil liberties, disabled people at parliament square are quite viciously bundled away.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The Establishment across the western world are now claiming to defend/uphold free speech: in London tomorrow, Trafalgar Sq and Tower Bridge will be decked in the Tricolour, I would hope civil society reminds them all of that when the next big protests: occupy, civil liberties, disabled people at parliament square is quite viciously bundled away.

Absolutely. I'm happy to say 'Je suis Charlie'. But I'll be fucked if I'll say 'Je suis la Republique'. Important distinction, imo.

 

[treelover]

The family of Ahmed Merabet, the police officer shot dead outside the offices of Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday, are speaking to the press now.
Merabet’s brother, Malek, speaks first. He says Ahmed was “French, of Algerian origin, of the Muslim faith … very proud to represent the views of the French republic: liberté, égalité, fraternité.” He was due to leave the country soon, he adds.
He loved his job. He was committed. He looked after his mother and his family since his father died 20 years ago … He was the pillar of his family.
[We are] devastated by this barbaric act, we are devastated for all the victims.
I address this to all the racists, the Islamophobes and the antisemites.
You mustn’t mix up extremism with Muslims. The mad men have no colour nor religion.
Stop burning mosques or burning synagogues because you are attacking people … It won’t bring back the dead and it won’t comfort the families.

From Guardian Update, very powerful comments from the policemans' brother.

 

[Spirit Of Slade]

I've been wearing a scarf when out earlier today which covered my face up to my eyes, then I had my hood up too as it was so cold.

I don't think I should be stopped from this entirely.

I see your point, but it really is a health and safety / medical reason why you're covering up your face - you don't want to end up with bastard cold / flu - that's fair enough.

 

[Orang Utan]

But that covers everyone now. When it's cold you want to cover up.

Also: what about on demos? Loads of people prefer not to be ID'd at demos.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Absolutely. I'm happy to say 'Je suis Charlie'. But I'll be fucked if I'll say 'Je suis la Republique'. Important distinction, imo.

Don't forget Je suis client de supermarche juif. Seems a bit overlooked in this whole tragedy. Poor buggers.

 

[treelover]

THE MAYOR OF ROTTERDAM SPEAKS
By Pete Moore On January 10th, 2015 at 3:36 pm
Bad language alert
Rotterdam Mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb appeared on television programme Nieuwsuur Wednesday night, and lashed out at Muslims living in this society despite their hatred of it. “It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom,” he said. “But if you do not like freedom, in Heaven’s name pack your bag and leave.”
“There may be a place in the world where you can be yourself,” he continued. “Be honest with yourself and do not go and kill innocent journalists,” Aboutaleb, a Muslim himself, said.
“And if you do not like it here because humorists you do not like make a newspaper, may I then say you can f*** off.”

The Mayor Of Rotterdam doesn't hold back, be interesting to see the responses, especially from the left.

 

[tony heath]

But that covers everyone now. When it's cold you want to cover up.

Also: what about on demos? Loads of people prefer not to be ID'd at demos.

No one wants to get cold at demos,

 

[ke$a]

I see your point, but it really is a health and safety / medical reason why you're covering up your face - you don't want to end up with bastard cold / flu - that's fair enough.

+ I just hate being cold (like most).

But don't you just think banning everyone from covering their face, for whatever reason, would just be giving these types of killer terrorists what they want, ultimately, censorship?

 

[Spirit Of Slade]

But that covers everyone now. When it's cold you want to cover up.

Also: what about on demos? Loads of people prefer not to be ID'd at demos.

But most of the time it isn't cold and even on a cold day, people take off their coverings when they can.

As for demos, no I don't agree with people covering their faces up. Yes, loads of people like to cover up, but most don't.

And before you ask. I don't like the idea of the police snapping photos of innocent people at demos then storing them away on some database, to me that's outrageous and shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Orang Utan]

LOL

 

[Spirit Of Slade]

+ I just hate being cold (like most).

But don't you just think banning everyone from covering their face, for whatever reason, would just be giving these types of killer terrorists what they want, ultimately, censorship?

In all honestly, this little side discussion isn't about terrorists or Islam. It's something I feel strongly about for people to get along.

 

[goldenecitrone]

The Mayor Of Rotterdam doesn't hold back, be interesting to see the responses, especially from the left.

Good on him. Wonder if the Muslim Council of Great Britain follow his lead.

 

[ke$a]

As far as I know, the only place illegal to hide your face is when in a bank.

 

[cesare]

This has come up on here before wrt the veil bans. Opposing the ban is not the same as arguing that it's all voluntary and all fine. There is no contradiction between opposing a state-enforced ban on the veil and at the same time stating clearly that women wearing the veil are putting themselves in a subordinate position wrt the men in their community. By covering their faces in public, they deny themselves a political voice in public.

There are of course all kinds of pressures to conform and submit to such practices, so the idea of it being a free choice is hugely problematic. It is quite possible to state this and to oppose a ban. In this case, opposition to a ban would be similar to the kind of opposition I would cite to authoritarians like Ataturk. Pointing out the inherent contradiction in the position where the state dictates how people must live in order to be free.

Do the women think they're being subordinate in wearing the veil, or is it possible that they wear it for their own reasons?