Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[danny la rouge]

This is wrong for all the reasons illustrated in the previous 50 pages, but it seems we've moved on anyway.

Yeah, we can’t let you away with that. The thread was not “won” by you just because you’ve been oscillating like a transverse wave over whether you blame Paty for his death (in your strange blame-but-not-blame formulation that reads like a Catholic trying to explain how the Trinity is monotheistic) or whether you recognise that some of what you thought to begin with was wrong-but-not-wrong.

It’s not a victory when everyone else wanders off home out of boredom, leaving you ranting at a lamppost.

You know that, right?

 

[brogdale]

i’m not blaming the teacher but you know he definitely shouldn’t of taught that lesson in that way. This is still the bedrock of this thread. I condemn the murder. But you know, his lesson plan was wrong.

There really are a greater diversity of views expressed in the thread than such a characterisation would suggest.
Perhaps best if I take my leave from the discussion, but I feel that some in here who have posted as serving or former teachers have expressed views that come naturally to those thoroughly imbued with the pedagogic principles of child-centred learning. I can appreciate that others, properly focused on the victim, may have interpreted such concern for the practicalities of the learning experience as somewhat callous and unfocused. Certainly my reaction to the reported instance self-exclusion was focussed on the children invited to decide on their participation, and I've accepted that many posters responded to challenge that as blaming the victim. That wasn't my intent, but I've accept ed that it may well have come across as such.

 

[Sweet FA]

I can see why you want to police the thread by repeatedly telling everyone it's over bar the cunting off, Spymaster. Your OP was shit and the comments you've made since haven't been much better. Raheem chuckling away to himself about the death of Samuel Paty is spectacularly shite too.

Fuck me, and people are still at it - 'I'm not blaming the teacher but'.

 

[Spymaster]

Yeah, we can’t let you away with that. The thread was not “won” by you just because you’ve been oscillating like a transverse wave over whether you blame Paty for his death (in your strange blame-but-not-blame formulation that reads like a Catholic trying to explain how the Trinity is monotheistic) or whether you recognise that some of what you thought to begin with was wrong-but-not-wrong.

It’s not a victory when everyone else wanders off home out of boredom, leaving you ranting at a lamppost.

You know that, right?

I don't see it as a victory although I definitely think I'm right and your wrong. I've been unequivocal that Paty wasn't to blame for his death. Plenty of others have noted that, so I'm no longer really bothered by how you, LBJ, and one or two others who share your position choose to misinterpret (knowingly or otherwise) mine. We're now at an impasse so we just have to agree to disagree on this one. Sorry mate.

 

[Spymaster]

.

 

[belboid]

Tragedies bring up issues, issues that need to be discussed if further tragedies are to be avoided. The cartoons are clearly a part of that.

while there have been some crudely made points, and some grandstanding, I don’t think anyone has posted anything except in a desire to avoid another such murder.

I think it will be tragic if they are used as the epitome of free speech in France. the far right - both Muslim and Christian varieties - will absolutely love it. They drive fucked off muslims further towards the fundies and give the racist Christians an excellent organising tool. Free speech will be epitomised not by kicking back against the state or against the powerful, but by kicking out against a minority group. Which is depressing.

 

[danny la rouge]

Tragedies bring up issues, issues that need to be discussed if further tragedies are to be avoided. The cartoons are clearly a part of that.

I think it will be tragic if they are used as the epitome of free speech in France. the far right - both Muslim and Christian varieties - will absolutely love it. They drive fucked off muslims further towards the fundies and give the racist Christians an excellent organising tool. Free speech will be epitomised not by kicking back against the state or against the powerful, but by kicking out against a minority group. Which is depressing.

You’ve got this exactly the wrong way round.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Don’t you think banning children from churches is just as intolerant as forcing them to attend them?

Yes, but you can't make an omelette without pissing people off.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Tragedies bring up issues, issues that need to be discussed if further tragedies are to be avoided. The cartoons are clearly a part of that.

I think it will be tragic if they are used as the epitome of free speech in France. the far right - both Muslim and Christian varieties - will absolutely love it. They drive fucked off muslims further towards the fundies and give the racist Christians an excellent organising tool. Free speech will be epitomised not by kicking back against the state or against the powerful, but by kicking out against a minority group. Which is depressing.

I think you mischaracterise Charlie Hebdo badly here. But setting that to one side and pretending that the cartoons represent what you think they represent, I still don't get your argument. Anybody can make the case that people they agree with should have freedom of speech. That's not the test. The test comes when someone says something you don't agree with.

 

[belboid]

You’ve got this exactly the wrong way round.

The fundies fucking love these cartoons. And they love the majority of Muslims (who oppose both the portrayal of Mohamed in pictures and Islamic fundamentalism) being put into the same camp as them.

 

[kabbes]

I've been unequivocal that Paty wasn't to blame for his death.

Yeah, just “unwisely inflammatory”, right?

 

[danny la rouge]

The fundies fucking love these cartoons. And they love the majority of Muslims (who oppose both the portrayal of Mohamed in pictures and Islamic fundamentalism) being put into the same camp as them.

Anyone can read the thread and see the “anti-racist” crowd doing exactly that: lumping all Muslims together and explaining how it is racist not to.

That’s what’s racist. And that’s how top down multiculturalism has swallowed and regurgitated the language of the far right and played straight into the hands of the forces of reaction.

 

[belboid]

I think you mischaracterise Charlie Hebdo badly here. But setting that to one side and pretending that the cartoons represent what you think they represent, I still don't get your argument. Anybody can make the case that people they agree with should have freedom of speech. That's not the test. The test comes when someone says something you don't agree with.

What CH intended is no longer the point. I wholly accept that CH did not intend any such right wing use, but that is what has happened and is happening. You can’t deny the far right love them, can you?

no idea what point you think you’re making with your other sentence, I’m not objecting to the abstract right to print these cartoons, it’s them being the greatest example that’s shit.

 

[Aladdin]

Yes, but you can't make an omelette without pissing people off.

So ... swap one dictatorship for another one.

History would tend to show that suppressing religion leads to its growth.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What CH intended is no longer the point. I wholly accept that CH did not intend any such right wing use, but that is what has happened and is happening. You can’t deny the far right love them, can you?

no idea what point you think you’re making with your other sentence, I’m not objecting to the abstract right to print these cartoons, it’s them being the greatest example that’s shit.

Some people have been saying that, in a class about freedom of speech held today in France, they are by far the most relevant example, so if you want to define 'greatest' as 'most relevant to this debate', then yes, they are.

You also seem to be saying that the way CH has been misinterpreted should now be simply accepted and not challenged, which is a rather bizarre thing to say tbh, and only emphasises how they're a strong example to use in a freedom of speech class. I would draw analogies with the Israeli state knowingly and falsely conflating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism in order to close down criticism of Israel. That can be a pretty effective tactic, too.

 

[Saul Goodman]

That's not true AFAIK and a quick search just suggests I'm right, you can take your kids to church here. Only one I know for sure is stopping underage kids becoming monks and lamas, and that still happens out in the sticks anyway despite the rules.

A quick search returned these results.

children under 18 banned from church china - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[Raheem]

Raheem chuckling away to himself about the death of Samuel Paty is spectacularly shite too.

You're entitled to think my posts are shite, and a lot of them probably are. But show me one instance where I've chuckled to myself about Paty's death.

This is the same emotive toe-the-line-please nonsense we've had all the way through the thread

 

[belboid]

Anyone can read the thread and see the “anti-racist” crowd doing exactly that: lumping all Muslims together and explaining how it is racist not to.

That’s what’s racist. And that’s how top down multiculturalism has swallowed and regurgitated the language of the far right and played straight into the hands of the forces of reaction.

Utterly dishonest. It isn’t me calling all those Muslims who don’t like pictures of Mohamed ‘religious fanatics’ it’s the (pseudo) secularists. You distinguish those from a Muslim background who have broken with many aspects of the faith with everyone else. When looking at who to work with to advance a socialist vision of society, that’s great. But when we’re talking about offering solidarity to oppressed people, it’s shit.

 

[JimW]

A quick search returned these results.

children under 18 banned from church china - Google Search

www.google.com

What you definitely can't do is open Google links You also see loads of kids wafting incense around in temples or taking part in ancestral grave sweeping btw

 

[Spymaster]

This is the same emotive toe-the-line-please nonsense we've had all the way through the thread

Spot on. All that's happening is that a few stragglers are catching-up and jumping on board.

 

[belboid]

Some people have been saying that, in a class about freedom of speech held today in France, they are by far the most relevant example, so if you want to define 'greatest' as 'most relevant to this debate', then yes, they are.

no I am saying that they have taken on a life way beyond that, in the calls for them to be displayed n every public building etc. I’m objecting to their promotion to being the national epitome of free speech. Nothing more nor less.

You also seem to be saying that the way CH has been misinterpreted should now be simply accepted and not challenged, which is a rather bizarre thing to say tbh, and only emphasises how they're a strong example to use in a freedom of speech class. I would draw analogies with the Israeli state knowingly and falsely conflating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism in order to close down criticism of Israel. That can be a pretty effective tactic, too.

Of course they and their meaning can be argued over, and will be. But can you deny they are being used by the right?

 

[danny la rouge]

A quick search returned these results.

children under 18 banned from church china - Google Search

www.google.com

Give it a rest, Saul. It’s a daft idea and not the place to discuss it.

 

[danny la rouge]

Utterly dishonest.

Yup, that’s not how debate works. Calling other people liars then clearly not reading what they say.

My reply is: anyone reading the exchange, just read what he quoted.

 

[Spymaster]

no I am saying that they have taken on a life way beyond that, in the calls for them to be displayed n every public building etc. I’m objecting to their promotion to being the national epitome of free speech. Nothing more nor less.


Of course they and their meaning can be argued over, and will be. But can you deny they are being used by the right, can you?

Of course they are which is another reason why I think this type of satire is so shit. I’ve mentioned this before but Warren Mitchell used to painstakingly point out in interviews that the Alf Garnet character was satirical and actually sending-up racists, but tell that to all the black and Asian folk who had to live through the 80s with constant shouts of “bloody coons!” and his other catchphrases ringing in our ears.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Of course they are which is another reason why I think this type of satire is so shit. I’ve mentioned this before but Warren Mitchell used to painstakingly point out in interviews that the Alf Garnet character was satirical and actually sending-up racists but tell that to all the black and Asian folk who had to live through the 80s with constant shouts of “bloody coons!” and his other catchphrases ringing in our ears.

That's a good comparison, and a valid criticism.

 

[Pickman's model]

That's a good comparison, and a valid criticism.

I'm sure spy finds your endorsement gratifying

 

[belboid]

Yup, that’s not how debate works. Calling other people liars then clearly not reading what they say.

My reply is: anyone reading the exchange, just read what he quoted.

Okay, utterly lazy would be more appropriate, all you’ve done is throw in an urban anti-buzzword and gone ‘that’ll do’. If you would like to make the case for my argument (which doesn’t support state controlled legislation or support for alternate ‘community leaders’ or specific Islamic ‘spaces’ or any of the other usual details ascribed to top down multiculturalism) being top down multiculturalism, please go ahead. Or show where I have lumped all Muslims together. Cos, as I said, I’m afraid it looks like you doing that to me.

 

[danny la rouge]

Or show where I have lumped all Muslims together.

I didn’t say specifically you* I’ve pointed it out on a number of occasions when it’s happened.

“He ordered all the Muslims out of the class” and “Muslims are all offended and therefore won’t want to see the cartoons” and on and on. This isn’t about buzzwords as you put it, it’s about how in the decades since the Rushdie fatwa, liberal society has fallen back on pushing Muslims into a homogenous fundamentalism, and then wondered why it’s started to happen. And that whole process is continuing apace on this very thread.

This isn’t sone sort of debating game. It’s how toxic liberalism is rejuvenating the forces or reaction. You know I sincerely believe that: I’ve been saying it for years.

*Though if I looked, I’d probably find you doing it.

 

[danny la rouge]

Plus you forget I literally saw the SWP doing this firsthand when I was active in the STWC. Suddenly it was all about agreeing with gender segregation and homophobia is a cultural norm. Fucking sickening reactionary appeasing cowardice.

 

[belboid]

I didn’t say specifically you* I’ve pointed it out on a number of occasions when it’s happened.

“He ordered all the Muslims out of the class” and “Muslims are all offended and therefore won’t want to see the cartoons” and on and on. This isn’t about buzzwords as you put it, it’s about how in the decades since the Rushdie fatwa, liberal society has fallen back on pushing Muslims into a homogenous fundamentalism, and then wondered why it’s started to happen. And that whole process is continuing apace on this very thread.

This isn’t sone sort of debating game. It’s how toxic liberalism is rejuvenating the forces or reaction. You know I sincerely believe that: I’ve been saying it for years.

*Though if I looked, I’d probably find you doing it.

I think top down multiculturalism has rather more to it than that, and that that can be a basis for all kinds of theory that are unhelpful.

But I’m afraid it is you putting the majority of Muslims into the same category, effectively saying that mainstream Islam is made up of ‘religious fanatics’ (from that secular society bit you quoted). It is certainly what much of the french media do, is it not?

In these circumstances it is absolutely vital to distinguish between the fundies and the ‘moderate’ Muslims as well as the ex-Muslims and liberal versions. We have to endure that any drive to defend freedom of expression doesn’t push those moderates into being extremists. But saying all those who don’t think the cartoons should be shown are fanatics does just that. Raising them to be an exemplar does just that.

Would you agree that they can be used (misused if you prefer) to push a racist agenda?