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

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm prepared to accept that either or both of you may know more about this than me and that my ignorance has led me to misjudge this situation, but I'll need a little more than simply "it was very very clear to everyone" or "he was being a cunt to muslim women".

Maybe you could explain why you think the way you do.

I'll let Sarkozy himself explain.

France is a country where there is no place for the burqa, where there is no place for the subservience of women

Speaking the year before he implemented the ban.

 

[Spirit Of Slade]

,the police withholding onto information about innocent people

who of thunk' it

I know.

I followed the debate in France before the law was brought in. It was very very clear to everyone why Sarkozy was doing it. It wasn't a response to a growing spate of balaclavas.

And they admitted as much.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And they admitted as much.

Yes. Sarkozy was entirely open about the reasons for the law. Proud of them.

 

[cesare]

I'm prepared to accept that either or both of you may know more about this than me and that my ignorance has led me to misjudge this situation, but I'll need a little more than simply "it was very very clear to everyone" or "he was being a cunt to muslim women".



Maybe you could explain why you think the way you do.

It's very annoying when men decide what's oppressive for women, when those women are saying they're mistaken.

 

[andysays]

When my local MP philip hollobone brought his private members bill arguing for a ban on face covering in public I immediately gave him a fair shake and realised that he simply wanted to facilitate communication and furthermore saw the niqab as a symbol of female oppression within islam. What a great guy.

Different context though - I'd be far happier about dismissing the idea that a British Tory MP was interested in either facilitating communication or challenging female oppression within islam than dismissing out of hand the idea that the justification for a French law which claimed to be about secularism and the relationship between state and citizen was bullshit, because I don't know enough about it to judge without a bit more info.

And that's why I'd be happy to hear more detail from people who apparently have that info.

 

[andysays]

I'll let Sarkozy himself explain.



Speaking the year before he implemented the ban.

OK, thank you for making that clear.

 

[DotCommunist]

Different context though - I'd be far happier about dismissing the idea that a British Tory MP was interested in either facilitating communication or challenging female oppression within islam than dismissing out of hand the idea that the justification for a French law which claimed to be about secularism and the relationship between state and citizen was bullshit, because I don't know enough about it to judge without a bit more info.

And that's why I'd be happy to hear more detail from people who apparently have that info.

thing is, france is not an alien culture. It's probably the closest in european terms to ours for history reasons. I see LBJ has provided the quote- and mark ye sarkozy was doing so because they are all pressured by FN's electoral success.

So while we may miss some socio-historical stuff and misinterpret a CH drawing without context, sometimes political moves are nakedly obvious and are signalled by the lawmakers themselves

 

[andysays]

It's very annoying when men decide what's oppressive for women, when those women are saying they're mistaken.

As far as I was aware, the reasons for the French ban didn't involve/include anything about oppression of women, but now I've been relived of my ignorance, I'm happy to agree that you and littlebabyjesus know more about it than me, and with the benefit of your knowledge it looks like the stuff I mention before was a smoke screen rather than the reality.

Not that I'm entirely surprised, I just wanted something a bit more than had been given so far, and now I've got it.

 

[andysays]

thing is, france is not an alien culture. It's probably the closest in european terms to ours for history reasons. I see LBJ has provided the quote- and mark ye sarkozy was doing so because they are all pressured by FN's electoral success.

So while we may miss some socio-historical stuff and misinterpret a CH drawing without context, sometimes political moves are nakedly obvious and are signalled by the lawmakers themselves

Certain aspects of it is a certainly an alien culture to me, at least to the extent that I don't feel I can necessarily immediately understand vaguely hidden ulterior motives of politicians in quite the same way as I would of their British equivalents.

But clearly the underlying interests and duplicity of the French ruling class is the same as that of the British one, even if they dress it up in different lingo etc.

Anyway, you were all right, and I'm happy to have been corrected in my ignorance and naivety.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Thanks for explaining that to me.

I already did explain why I think this. It's not some kind of men vs women thing. I oppose any attempt to ban it, but I think it's naive, tbh, to pretend that it's some form of political empowerment to cover yourself up and deny yourself a public identity. It forms part of a wider culture in which women are neither seen nor heard in public.

 

[DotCommunist]

Certain aspects of it is a certainly an alien culture to me, at least to the extent that I don't feel I can necessarily immediately understand vaguely hidden ulterior motives of politicians in quite the same way as I would of their British equivalents.

But clearly the underlying interests and duplicity of the French ruling class is the same as that of the British one, even if they dress it up in different lingo etc.

Anyway, you were all right, and I'm happy to have been corrected in my ignorance and naivety.

if you didn't follow it at the time it could be easy to attribute more altruistic motives to it looking now, but it was coming in the wake of FN upsurge, dutch minaret ban so on and so forth. At the time I aksed what happened to libertie fraternie egalitie (god fuck my franglais) and was told to look at what the fraternity bit customarily comes out as.

 

[Spirit Of Slade]

thing is, france is not an alien culture. It's probably the closest in european terms to ours for history reasons. I see LBJ has provided the quote- and mark ye sarkozy was doing so because they are all pressured by FN's electoral success.

So while we may miss some socio-historical stuff and misinterpret a CH drawing without context, sometimes political moves are nakedly obvious and are signalled by the lawmakers themselves

I don't think the Irish would agree with you somehow!

 

[rekil]

"No, "Charlie Hebdo" is not racist" by Charb (Directeur de publication "Charlie Hebdo") et Fabrice Nicolino (Journaliste) in Le Monde.

It's all in forrin but if this or even the refusal to bother having a look at the mag hasn't stopped the two bob opinion mongering brand community from serving up some piping hot takes, then it shouldn't stop anyone else.

Eg. Jacobin/New InkWirry fellow having a go here

The line now is that you cannot criticise Charlie Hebdo, because they had the bravery to criticise anything. Je suis Charlie: you have to identify yourself with an openly racist publication.

Is freedom of speech nothing more than the freedom for a multi-million dollar studio to make a warmongering film, or the freedom to publish a racist magazine?

 

[captainmission]

I've been particularly amused/bemused that sections of the liberal intersectionalist crowd have been refusing Je suis Charlie in place of Je suis Ahmed (after the French Algerian police man shot in the attacks). It seem whilst Charlie Habdo was a bastion of white supremecy and structural racism, the French police force never did anything French Muslims would find objectionable.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Putting here as this is the last posting thread: ke$a banned (was Silent Whisper which will surprise few) and tony heath banned (was Firky - this came up a while back but he disappeared for a while so it got forgotten). As you were, don't want to disrupt anything but it's probably best to put an announcement in.

 

[bluescreen]

I've been particularly amused/bemused that sections of the liberal intersectionalist crowd have been refusing Je suis Charlie in place of Je suis Ahmed (after the French Algerian police man shot in the attacks). It seem whilst Charlie Habdo was a bastion of white supremecy and structural racism, the French police force never did anything French Muslims would find objectionable.

ffs. Not because he was polis but because he was an ordinary bloke doing his job who happened to be a Muslim. People live their lives in multiple spheres, you know - you don't have to get bingo.

 

[bluescreen]

Oh, and well done for bringing in the collective responsibility meme.

 

[captainmission]

ffs. Not because he was polis but because he was an ordinary bloke doing his job who happened to be a Muslim. People live their lives in multiple spheres, you know - you don't have to get bingo.

I have no beef with the bloke, he died in a horrible killing trying to protect others. I just find it strange people will reject Je suis Charlie but be fine with Je suis Ahmed.

 

[danny la rouge]

We, you and I and most others here promote self-censorship for racists.

No, I don't. (Although you do seem to be using the term in a way I don't recognise as its traditional meaning). I promote challenging racism.

 

[redsquirrel]

We, you and I and most others here promote self-censorship for racists. I doubt racists would feel comfortable expressing their views here.

Hang on these two things are not equivalent. I don't promote the former but I do want to ensure racists are challenged/criticised/mocked.

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.

There's a vast difference between the community deciding that people who express certain views aren't welcome and a top down state imposed pressure for self-censorship.

 

[bluescreen]

I have no beef with the bloke, he died in a horrible killing trying to protect others. I just find it strange people will reject Je suis Charlie but be fine with Je suis Ahmed.

Not so strange, really. Some people will reject Je suis Charlie because they aren't happy with the values it stood for, or simply because they are not clear about the values. They recognise that a Muslim died doing his job. Whatever the failings of the French police, at least their supposed job is to protect the public and keep the peace.

 

[bluescreen]

Hang on these two things are not equivalent. I don't promote the former but I do want to ensure racists are challenged/criticised/mocked.

There's a vast difference between the community deciding that people who express certain views aren't welcome and a top down state imposed pressure for self-censorship.

I'm less in favour of self-censorship for racists (though it's good if they can exercise that in public) than I am for racists re-examining their prejudices and realising the error of their ways.

There seems to be a bit of confusion around the meaning of self-censorship. Some people seem to regard it as applying to a group. (Yes, as a group we exercise norms.) Perhaps it's just me who's confused: I thought it meant an individual stopping him/herself from blurting something out. Something we learn to do at an early age. If someone is self-censoring things like racism, the problem goes much deeper than freedom of speech, doesn't it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Hang on these two things are not equivalent. I don't promote the former but I do want to ensure racists are challenged/criticised/mocked.

Yeah, this is a good point. I think I'd probably rather racists on here just came out with it so that it could be challenged rather than pretend they're not racist. Not sure, tbh. Not sure I have an opinion either way about how racists should act, except that I think they should sort their stupid racist selves out. And yes, I do think racist people can become not racist.

 

[danny la rouge]

racists re-examining their prejudices and realising the error of their ways.

This is what I'm for. And if they don't themselves, then by challenging racism, anti racists can talk to others who might hear the challenge.

There seems to be a bit of confusion around the meaning of self-censorship

Yes, there does. I don't think I'm getting the sense Knotted is using it in. I may be out of date with my terminology, though. Maybe it has a new jargonised meaning that all the theory buffs are using now, and I missed the memo. That's happened before.

 

[Humberto]

I don't think it particularly matters in terms of class politics. There are good voices and bad voices, and the bad can be argued with to the point they have to shut up. We have the freedom to express the truth and what is just which is bestowed from a higher power which is enshrined. The bad guys haven't and can't take that away. For example Urban 75 requires self-moderation of anything which detrimental. Our rulers should be US not privately schooled oxbridge careerists. I can say that and not worry which is kind of what I mean by free speech isn't an issue with class politics.

WE the people deserve a politics in OUR interests. They will eventually reap what they sow. I'm left wing but I'm not in agreement with all left wingers. Another facet of free speech.

I can stand on the high street like a loony and preach hell and damnation to sinners, yet I will be ignored, and possibly roughed up if I get into racism and homophobia. Censorship in action.

 

[frogwoman]

Southall black sisters:

http://www.womensgrid.org.uk/groups/?p=2820

 

[Maltin]

Putting here as this is the last posting thread: ke$a banned (was Silent Whisper which will surprise few) and tony heath banned (was Firky - this came up a while back but he disappeared for a while so it got forgotten). As you were, don't want to disrupt anything but it's probably best to put an announcement in.

And Gone Girl?

 

[trashpony]

Gone Girl = silent whisper

 

[8ball]

Gone Girl = silent whisper

Seemed that way to me.

Returners must not be tolerated - your children will be next!!!

 

[cesare]

I already did explain why I think this. It's not some kind of men vs women thing. I oppose any attempt to ban it, but I think it's naive, tbh, to pretend that it's some form of political empowerment to cover yourself up and deny yourself a public identity. It forms part of a wider culture in which women are neither seen nor heard in public.

Why should you decide what's politically empowering for women? Not seen and not heard - you think that women wearing the veil are not seen and heard?