The left - and a surprising number of people here - seem to be saying that we should avoid confronting Islam on this because it's needlessly provocative, and we should meekly turn the other cheek.
Well, I'll be on the line of the Canard Enchaîné (How about zero intolerance?) and keep on telling people to stop trying to impose their religions on society. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
However, people being rational doesn't make headlines, does it?
Why must we confront Islam? What good does it do? The correct response was "We're sorry about those prats, but that's the price of freedom of speech. It's the same freedom of speech that allows you speak out against us. If you want to live here you have to learn to accept it. Sorry, part of the package." Instead the situation has been exploited for circulation and political advantage.
The correct response was "We're sorry about those prats, but that's the price of freedom of speech. It's the same freedom of speech that allows you speak out against us. If you want to live here you have to learn to accept it. Sorry, part of the package."
But that's exactly what's been done, and that's precisely what has been called "confronting Islam" or "bullying the weak" by afew, DeAnander et al.
so Colman, are with us or against us? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
are with us or against us
Forgive me for not seeing the self-derision. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Look, what are you trying to achieve? How does repeating the offence move those aims forward? My aim is to maintain the progress we've made in Europe while trying to help the middle east away from the despotic governments and fundamentalists. This doesn't help that at all. Quite the opposite: it helps out both the despots and the loonies.
Ultimately, we are saying that they can do it, because that's the kind of things "they" do, and it's pretty damn racist on its own. Yeah, they are run by savage, manipulating dictatures or fundamentalist preachers, that's how they are, and there's nothing to say about it. I disagree. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
And I'm afraid here that the European secularists are the strong ones here.
In the context of a Danish peninsula in September last year, perhaps they were. But 20 percent of humanity (1.3 billion) are Muslim. It's the world's most practiced religion. How, after this issue has been internationalized so as to cause outrage from Indonesia to Morocco, are the European secularists "the strong ones"? Numerically and economically, they sure as hell are not. The world's northernmost desert wind.
So, compared with 1.3 Billion people, mostly in developing countries, I think Europe is economically stronger and numerically comparable.
What really, really worries me about this whole thing is that the left is on the brink of signing up to "fortress Europa" and reneging on the right of refugees (including political and religious) to obtain asylum in Europe without having to go through ideological (including religious) litmis tests. THAT is what I'm worried the European left is about ready to sacrifice. I don't want ideological litmus tests imposed on human rights. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
There are 800 million europeans according to the Council of Europe.
And these are all secularists? News to me. The world's northernmost desert wind.
There are 800 million europeans according to the Council of Europe.And these are all secularists? News to me.
I actually got pilloried in the cartoon debates for suggesting that secularism and freedom of speech are not necessarily fundamental to being European. So, is Europe secular and committed to free speech, or is it not?
A false dilemma. Secular people (let alone "secularists," your original term) are of course a mere subset of the free speech supporters. A big proportion of European Christians, say, would accept the right to lampoon Christianity. It wasn't always thus, but let's face it: Life of Brian - which makes fun and games of the Crucifixion - routinely runs on primetime TV in large European countries with nary a protest, let alone cries for cencorship. This despite the fact that even in Norway, the world's most secular country, fully 50 percent believe in God.
However, there are blasphemy paragraphs in a number of legal codes including ours. Hereabouts it is dormant, with the last prosecution, which led to acquittal, taking place in 1933. But leading Muslim spokesmen and organizations now call for reviving it.
While I doubt they will get this through, I sure don't appreciate the effort. The world's northernmost desert wind.
You forgot about the Czech Republic, Sweden and Russia. (There is East Germany too.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I consider Muslims a minority among us, certainly. I have never said that explaining our principles was bullying. I am saying that explaining our principles requires encouragment of the moderates so we have people we can speak to. But that kind of virtuous movement has been compromised by the cartoon controversy. So I will not take sides with the provocateurs.
But you are essentially saying that we should explain our principles, but not use them because that's "provocative", so we come agaisnt that dead-end again. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Forget about the "bullying" for the moment, you're twisting what I'm saying even more with this:
explain our principles, but not use them because that's "provocative"
I have used the term "provocation" to talk about the publication of the cartoons, and I'll add the deliberate piling-on of republication. I have not used the term in relation to principles like, we have women teachers and doctors (since you offered those examples). I have said clearly that we should refuse to accept extremist demands on these.
You persist in conflating the issue of the cartoons with other issues in everyday life and its organization.
Now some questions for you, tough guy (up to you to decide how far that's a joke, since apparently that's what we have to do with your comments...):
What do you mean exactly by "use" our principles? Just what do you propose to do? How are you going to stop the (admittedly manipulated and outrageous) protests in the Middle East? What are you going to do to European Muslims to force them to accept our piddling right to draw funny pics of Mohammed? Go on publishing and republishing cartoons until... Until what? And what purpose will you have served at the end of it?
End result: an injured, vindicated free speaker; and a jailed, offended violent idiot. Also, the original speech and the court arguments during the assault trial (where the defence will try to argue on the basis of the offensive speech) will be informative to the general public. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
The price of freedom of speech is that someone can get offended enough to assault you as a result. Then you can win a court case for assault.
Or you can be dead. Or, as in the case of Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard, who was gunned down on the street in Oslo, you can survive but the attacker gets away.
Are you fine with this type of situation? Because it sounds as though you are. The world's northernmost desert wind.
an injured, vindicated free speaker; and a jailed, offended violent idiot. Also, the original speech and the court arguments during the assault trial (where the defence will try to argue on the basis of the offensive speech) will be informative to the general public.
As to remedies, well, giving in to threats is certainly not going to help in the long run. In that regard (if in no other) it's good that Ayaan Hirsi Ali & co are working on a sequel to van Gogh's film, and that several European papers republished those cartoons. This communicates to potential attackers that their violence isn't going to work. The world's northernmost desert wind.
You're assuming that potential attackers are sane and rational. Odds are they won't be.
Migeru simply explained what happens, not what should happen.
His wording suggested that this is a fact of life we must accept, and even has a silver lining.
I disagree. It's a common mistake among the civilized to assume that violent scum aren't sane and rational. In a political context, they frighteningly often are.
Just to illustrate (since anecdotal evidence of course proves nothing) the attacker in the Nygaard case is believed to have been either a hitman or an Iranian government operative. His tracks disappeared at the Iranian embassy.
For that matter, the thug who stabbed Theo van Gogh is also jugded to be sane. Anna Lindh's killer, too. Both appear to have been politically motivated murders. The world's northernmost desert wind.
Both appear to have been politically motivated murders.
What motivated them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Lindh
Theo van Gogh: Dutch filmmaker, stabbed and shot to death in 2004 by a Dutch radical Islamist with terrorist connections in retribution for a 10-minute film about suppression of women in Islam. On his body the killer appended a note which threatened Western governments, Jews, and the politician A. Hirshi Ali, on whose book the film was based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29 The world's northernmost desert wind.
Now, how do you suggest Europe can prevent political assassinations from happening other than instituting some sort of thought police? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Allegedly Olof Palme's was also a political assassination.
Probably, but that's never been resolved.
Now, how do you suggest Europe can prevent political assassinations from happening other than instituting some sort of thought police?
I have never said I believe it can be prevented outright. That would be pretty daft.
I have said that yielding to threats is not going to help. Rather it will encourage those making such threats.
Keeping known extremist factions under surveillance, as is being done all over Europe, is obviously also wise. The world's northernmost desert wind.
In modern épée fencing there is the possibility of a "double touch" with both fencers scoring a point on a simultaneous hit. One of the most renowned fencing masters (of the classical school) of the 20th century used to say "double touch: two dead idiots". guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
In what world do you live in? Can you give one example when the violent learned that violence isn't going to work?
What you overlook is that the violent (and the culture warriors in the West, and the far-right in the West) also fight for domestic popularity and recruits, and the cartoons culture war gave them that in droves. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
In what world do you live in?
Third planet out from the Sun. And you?
Can you give one example when the violent learned that violence isn't going to work?
Yeah, this dude down the street, let me see where I have his telephone number. Come on, this is silly.
What you overlook is that the violent (and the culture warriors in the West, and the far-right in the West) also fight for domestic popularity and recruits, and the cartoons culture war gave them that in droves.
Give me some credit of intelligence, huh? How could I "overlook" that?
As I have said repeatedly, I don't approve of the original publication. However, given that it occurred and was whipped into a global campaign for editorial and diplomatic apologies as well as censorship, and where threats of violence abound against the newspapers and even countries involved, the solidarity is called for. Sure, deescalate whereever possible; sometimes it isn't. "If you pay the Dane-geld," an old saying goes, "you never get rid of the Dane."
That said, there are two sides to this republication question; my position is all-things-considered. Unlike the issue of whether freedom of speech is negotiable. The world's northernmost desert wind.
