Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Hurt feelings are not the issue. Calling it a racist magazine when this is demonstrably not true is (a) dishonest, (b) arguably libelous.

Dishonesty is a real problem. Offensiveness is a purely subjective one.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 at 12:14:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And depicting Mohammed as a crazy alien is just fine, because it is anti-religion. QED
by Katrin on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 at 12:24:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Which part of
If you want to take a particular violation of a religious taboo to task for being racist, then take it to task on its merits.

did you have difficulty understanding?

You need to prove that the depiction was of "Mohammed as a crazy alien" before you get to make that argument. With, you know, actual reference to the actual publication in question.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 at 02:30:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Katrin on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 at 02:54:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How does that picture look, eh?
by Katrin on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 at 02:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(see the other one higher up the thread).

And your point is?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 07:50:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A yellow alien with crazy eyes.
by Katrin on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 08:11:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
or my Prime Minister you're talking about?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 08:30:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For a moment I toyed with responding by denigrating and dehumanising a personality you admire until you feel the pain. I am sure that I could find one. It is not what I would do and what I would enjoy, though. I don't understand this wish to make Muslims (or anyone else) suffer. How you can support that is beyond me.
by Katrin on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 03:19:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
to the point of making me suffer. Mockery is good. The more powerful the person (or the symbol), the better it is to mock them. There are no exceptions that I can think of. Nothing is sacred.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 04:24:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Male white Anglo-Saxons probably have little experience with it, but being mocked for one's identity hurts like hell.
by Katrin on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 06:56:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Name someone who is being mocked for their identity in the context of this discussion.

None of my Muslim friends are being mocked for their identity if I mock Mohammed. None of my Christian friends are being mocked if I mock Jesus. And if you mock Elvis and I love Elvis, I'm not being mocked for my identity. If I get upset about it, then I should lighten up. I have noted that some people on this site tend to get nasty and personal if their political heroes get mocked. This may sometimes be amusing but usually it's tiresome.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 07:11:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My Muslim friends tend to take attacks on their religion (where mocking Mohammed really isn't encouraged, to put it mildly) as attacks on themselves. Being a member of the majority religion I am very relaxed, but if I lived somewhere where Christians are a persecuted minority, I would probably be rather thin-skinned and see attacks of my religion as attacks on my identity too.
by Katrin on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 08:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And we have had at least one ET contributor leave the blog because he perceived an attack on the Pope's political positions as a personal attack on him (the contributor).

At some level you have to accept that if you believe a topic is fair game in political discussion and somebody else is personally offended, the problem is not with the political discussion. At least that appears to be a ground rule of this here forum: no subject matters are out of order (there are exceptions: we have on occasion banned openly antisemitic content and anything that could lead to legal liability for the blog itself, such as libel or copyright violation).

Personally, I find that a lot of the Mohammed cartoon issue involves people in a politically dominant group gratuitously offending people in a minority group. I fail to see what above-board political argument is advanced by publishing a slew of cartoons that the publishers know will cause offence, and with the deliberate aim of causing offence.

It's a bit like the joke about political freedom in the USSR:

American: "The proof that we have freedom of speech in the USA is that we can march in front of the White House to protest US policy"
Russian: "We have freedom of speech in the USSR as well, the proof is that we can march in front of the American Embassy to protest US policy"

Similarly, the Danish cartoonists enjoy press freedom: the proof is that they can mock the religion of foreigners.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 03:20:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:

At some level you have to accept that if you believe a topic is fair game in political discussion and somebody else is personally offended, the problem is not with the political discussion. At least that appears to be a ground rule of this here forum: no subject matters are out of order (there are exceptions: we have on occasion banned openly antisemitic content and anything that could lead to legal liability for the blog itself, such as libel or copyright violation).

Personally, I find that a lot of the Mohammed cartoon issue involves people in a politically dominant group gratuitously offending people in a minority group. I fail to see what above-board political argument is advanced by publishing a slew of cartoons that the publishers know will cause offence, and with the deliberate aim of causing offence.

word-perfectly put.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 08:20:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
OTOH is it not legitimate to take an 'acted position' in order to provoke a discussion, or question an audience? In a long line since Lenny Bruce, comedians have questioned the accepted opinions of audiences of all types.  These are 'acted positions' (Frank Boyle, Al Murray et al of today, as examples). These positions are aimed at a specific audience, not at the people who suffer the intolerance and bigotry.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 10:16:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
i think it's valid, in fact it's very tempting to do so, though it's risky as many readers may not be clued in to what you are doing, and thus why.

irony has a similar problem as tools go.

as persuasive tool, it works on the half-convinced, and can backfire. one man's snark is another's canon.

maybe leg-pulling can embarrass people into dropping old attitudes, and it's fun, so... on we toil.

maybe there is a yet higher way, so unequivocal as not even need humour.

very few get there. john cleese doing 'upper class twit' probably persuaded some of the UCTs to dial back some of the more obnoxious of their affectations! once it's established your intention is mostly to get a laugh, you can enjoy more freedom to play those edges.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 11:54:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Fool is Lear's Fool (and one could argue, an extension of Lear's psyche). He is authorised to mock Lear. If another character were to mock Lear in the same way, Lear's reaction would be very different.

Other modern "fools" are questioning their audience and its accepted opinions. This is an invaluable exercise, imo. But its effectiveness stems from the fact that they question the culture from within. This is part of a process by which a culture can lose its prejudices and become broader and more tolerant.

Charlie Hebdo, as fools go (and I've been reading it on and off for forty years), has mostly carried out that function of questioning and mocking from within, and imo to sometimes devastating effect. In terms of religion, that means mostly attacking the authoritarian and reactionary positions of the Catholic clergy and, in particular, the Pope. To applause from me.

On the other hand, I don't support their choosing to mock and question the accepted beliefs of Muslims, however authoritarian and reactionary I think those beliefs may be. Such mockery from the outside is not much likely to be effective in bringing about fresh thinking in the Muslim world -- quite apart from the kneejerk tribal defence effect it is sure to have, change in Islamic culture can imo only come about through the effect of challenges from within. This is something I believe will happen (unless the planet kicks us off it before then). But it's the business of Muslims and those brought up in that culture. The "West" doesn't have lessons to hand out to them.

Yet, whether it be Jyllands Posten or Charlie Hebdo that publishes the material, it can only be perceived in the Islamic world as an emanation of the "West". Neither paper is ignorant of this. So the intention seems to me to be other than mocking in order to question and bring about a positive dynamic in the culture. It looks more like defiance, hostile acts born from a civilisation-clash worldview. And that, I dislike as much as I dislike the trolly language of ormondotvos' diary.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:25:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
afew:
So the intention seems to me to be other than mocking in order to question and bring about a positive dynamic in the culture.

so very encouraging to see reasonable attitudes free of prejudice or arrogance. it's up to us to try and mend the scars of centuries, and try to rebring about the peaceful, (and amazingly productive) co-existence that has on occasion occurred between our cultures.

it's happening in music, with our strains melding beautifully with theirs. (someone will probably post something appropriate!).

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 04:11:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm surprised that you, afew, in particular, should characterise the current CH publication as being addressed by Occidentals to international Islam.

The comic of the life of the Prophet was written by French people, Muslim and non-Muslim, for French people, Muslim and non-Muslim.

We (including you and me, afew) live in a society in which a large number of people, French by birth, are of Muslim heritage, whether actively Muslim or not. They are friends, neighbours, colleagues, part of the fabric of society (probably a bit thin on the ground out your way). Islam is not a foreign religion in France. And it is the religion of an underprivileged minority with which CH has always manifested solidarity, to the extent that I'm quite sure that, in their own heads at least, CH do not see themselves satirising Islam from the outside, but as an aspect of a society in which they (and we) are fully part.

I was pretty ambivalent when Charlie Hebdo reprinted the Jyllands Posten drawings (however I have approved of CH's own drawings of Mahomet published on that occasion, and since). That was certainly an edgy editorial decision; and I think the editor, Charb, is right in saying that they put the cart before the horse (there is an element of implicit self-criticism in that).

But, again, I really don't much evidence of geopolitics in any of the editorial decisions of CH. To the extent that they are concerned with reactions outside France, it is with French-speaking North Africa. They have been fervent supporters of the Arab Spring, and highly critical of the rise of political Islam, in Tunisia in particular. Those who organised anti-CH demonstrations are of the Salafist tendency, i.e. the extreme right of the political spectrum of the Arab world (I hope nobody is shocked by that characterisation!)

CH in a fight with the extreme right : it's hardly a novelty.

The impact within France deserves more consideration. Later.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 04:57:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
eurogreen:
characterise the current CH publication as being addressed by Occidentals to international Islam.

I didn't. I said it would necessarily be perceived in the Islamic world as an emanation of the West.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 05:06:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
OTOH is it not legitimate to take an 'acted position' in order to provoke a discussion, or question an audience?

It's one thing to speak truth to power, and quite another to bully.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 07:02:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree - but at what point does one become the other?

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 02:40:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought of the two of us I was the socially inept one...

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 02:50:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can't bully the powerful.

On the other hand, maybe you can. I am instantly reminded of Michael Moore's interview of Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine. Since my first viewing of that movie, it felt to me like harassment. Sort of like a happy-slappy video.

Then again, as Galbraith said,

In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong.


I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 02:57:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Presumably a labour strike cannot therefore be seen as bullying?

My point is that there is no clear line between 'truth to power' and 'bullying' without understanding the audience that 'freedom of speech' addresses. I agree that in many, perhaps most, cases it is easy to see which is which (usually because the law is clear). But there are also cases in which the messaging can only be defined by the supposed intent.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 06:52:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My point is that there is no clear line between 'truth to power' and 'bullying' without understanding the audience that 'freedom of speech' addresses.

What? There's no clarity in who has power over whom in most situations?

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 03:25:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I remember 9-11 Truther talk being disapproved of here, long time ago.
by stevesim on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 11:03:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hm. Do you mean it shouldn't have been?

I'm not sure what you remember, though: I don't think I debated Truthers on ET after its first year or two, well before you arrived here (ET was founded in 2005); Truthism went into decline like Birthism is now.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 06:06:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But it wasn't banned outright, it was discouraged and DoDo did a lot of debunking of it.

I remember one particular instance where I insisted that just because it had originated with 9-11 truth theories there was no reason to ban a discussion of airplane engines.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 06:18:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Given the extremely heated, improductive debate the topic tended to produce, diaries advocating such CT were declared off-limits in the Editorial Guidelines. In other words, such diaries will be deleted.

There have been no occurrences regarding 9/11. OTOH, a couple of diaries advocating Holocaust Denial have iirc been deleted (blatant falsification of historical facts).

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 02:47:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, re-visiting ET history, feels like pre-history :-)

If I searched and remember right, the last debate with Truthers I participated in was the comments of this diary from June 2007 (almost precisely two years after ET's founding). I don't remember anymore exactly when that line was added to the guidelines and with what consequence it was enforced regarding Truther diaries, but there was no talk of banning in that particular diary. At any rate, the dustup involving aircraft engines Migeru must be referring to is this (continued here and here), nine moths earlier, apparently prior to the creation of any guideline.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 04:39:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
yes, I read that exchange and it turned me off ET for a long time.
by stevesim on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 02:48:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ET got very turned off one of the participants to the extent that that person's accounts were later closed. One of the few people who've been banned in nearly eight years of this forum. So it really isn't a pleasant memory.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 04:51:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
European Tribune - ET Editorial Guidelines
The European Tribune is a left-of-centre community that is devoted primarily but not exclusively to discussions of current events, underlying causes and new ideas in economics, politics, science and society. Users are free to write diaries on any subject they want, as long as these are not

  • personally offensive,
  • defamatory,
  • do not blatantly falsify scientific or historical facts or
  • advocate theories involving pervasive high-level conspiracies
and to comment on contributions by other users. All views published on this site, without exception, are subject to debate, challenge and criticism by any user (as long as the proprieties of civility and ETiquette are observed). No "authority" - whether secular or religious, contemporary or historical - is considered above critical scrutiny. It is not the task of the editorial team to ensure any "balance" of views.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 11:45:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Since at least the Iraq War, we could invert the USSR joke...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 05:43:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and actually my question was which arson?
by Katrin on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 at 12:30:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Clicky.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 at 02:34:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what I suspected: an arson that happened before this publication. To my When they don't react and consequently the sales of that rubbish magazine don't rise, you answered:

JakeS:

I guess arson does not count as a reaction. Oh, well.

Proof for the perpetual barbarism of the Muslims in their reactions to "anticlerical" publications is an arson that was committed BEFORE the publication. So whatever Muslims do, it's wrong. There had been protests at earlier publications, and there had been violence at yet other times, during the period of endless publications of humiliations. Now there is no reaction at all and that still isn't good enough for you

by Katrin on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 at 02:48:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Uh, yeah, if crackpots tossed a Molotov cocktail into your office last time you published something, that is reason enough to publish it again.

I didn't think that was a terribly controversial point.

You seem to want publishers to predict the future and not publish when they foresee that there will not be a reaction that retroactively justifies publication. I disagree with that requirement.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 at 02:54:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You complain that you can't offend Muslims without them getting violent, but when they don't get violent, you still complain about their violence.

Don't you notice that there is no violence in answer to CH's despicable campaign? There is silence. CH is free to publish what rubbish they want in order to vilify Islam. Nobody keeps them from it. What more do you want? You want a reason to complain that [insert terms for religious HUMAN BEINGS that you would never accept if used on you] kept you from speaking up. If it isn't there, you invent it.

by Katrin on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 07:02:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I want names.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 07:49:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I addressed that post to Jake. That's a name.
by Katrin on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 08:03:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're becoming increasingly incoherent.

The last time Charlie Hebdo published idolatry pictures, it was firebombed. That itself is justification enough to publish idolatry pictures again. There is nothing despicable about that - despicable would be allowing religious thugs to impose their parochial taboos on other people.

You seem to be assuming that the absence of religious thuggery against the paper retroactively invalidates that reasoning. It doesn't - the paper could not know at the time of publication that there would be no religious thuggery in response. Unless you want to demand that papers hire psychic mediums to predict which of their articles will generate a reaction that justifies them.

Finally, I have no obligation to note and praise every instance where no religious thugs performed religious thuggery in response to an offense against their parochial taboos.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 07:57:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You called a violent reaction barbarianism and the absence of violence barbarianism too. Now you introduce the term "religious thuggery". How am I to interpret that? "Religious thuggery" bad, anti-religious thuggery good? Please enlighten me.
by Katrin on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 08:07:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I call any attempt to claim special privileges not accorded to vegetarians, cat lovers or chess players barbarism. Violent or not.

Replacing [adherent to the religion du jour] with "a collector of horse porn" is a good litmus test for whether a demand of deference is reasonable or not. "Being a collector of horse porn is not sufficient grounds for the political police to investigate you" is a very reasonable proposition. "Newspapers may not mock horse porn" is not. "Periodicals may not print images of horse porn" is certainly not.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 08:48:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is disgusting.
by Katrin on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 03:12:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You find horse porn disgusting. Some people presumably hold it as a major point of their sexual identity.

That you find it disgusting is, in fact, the reason it makes a good test for whether you are arguing for a generally applicable human right, or merely a privilege to be extended and withdrawn arbitrarily. It is altogether too cheap to argue that the things you happen to find sacred and wholesome must be protected from jeers and sarcasm. If you're sincere about protection from ridicule being an actual human right, then it must also apply to (otherwise legal) activities that you find repulsive.

Otherwise, you're just serving up sectarian special pleading.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:32:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
JakeS:
You find horse porn disgusting.

That's not what I said, and I am not sure it would trigger off any reaction in me. I find your post disgusting.

JakeS:

It is altogether too cheap to argue that the things you happen to find sacred and wholesome must be protected from jeers and sarcasm.

The thing I hold sacred and absolutely supreme is human dignity. It implies respect for a person's identity.

by Katrin on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 03:20:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's one of those terms that everyone is expected to nod assent to.

I don't, unless you can be more specific. Your demand, your proof.

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Jan 12th, 2013 at 09:20:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think Katrin called for a ban on the publication of mocking. You, too, seem to be conflating the issue of what one should not be allowed to do and what is not a good thing to do.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 05:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not arguing that it's terribly productive, or even particularly smart, tasteful or funny. Nor am I arguing that there are no reasonable arguments against publishing.

What I am arguing is that religious privilege is not a reasonable argument. Because religious privilege is not a valid argument for anything, ever.

Now, if the debate we were having were about how to most effectively get religious people in France to stop demanding special treatment for their religious symbols, then I'd be completely on board with the argument that it's (a) not a high priority problem and (b) not well served by white, middle-class people doing the mocking.

But before we can get to that, we have to firmly establish that demanding such special treatment for religious symbols is not legitimate. And we're obviously not there yet.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 03:41:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I am arguing is that religious privilege is not a reasonable argument.

Is Katrin (or anyone else in this diary) arguing for religious privilege? I missed a large part of the religion debates over the past year, so I can't be sure; but in this diary, her argument seems to be focused on the majority vs. minority angle, not the religious vs. secular/other religious angle.

if the debate we were having were about how to most effectively get religious people in France to stop demanding special treatment for their religious symbols

Why would we have such a debate? First, I don't see a pressing need in December 2012 to push back against such demands. Second, as far as I'm concerned, people can demand it all they like as long as (1) they don't have the tools of coercion, (2) no official institution grants the demands, and (3) I can voice disagreement publicly.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 04:52:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
JakeS:
I'm not arguing that it's terribly productive, or even particularly smart, tasteful or funny.

But nevertheless you found it the right stuff in order to shut up a woman who defends the human rights of a persecuted minority.

JakeS:

What I am arguing is that religious privilege is not a reasonable argument. Because religious privilege is not a valid argument for anything, ever

Nobody is arguing "religious privilege". You are inventing that. I am arguing (and consistently arguing so there is no possibility to misunderstand me) that there is a minority that is consistently persecuted and harrassed. The minority is kept in poverty. Laws force the women among them to go naked according to their perception, or else they won't be allowed even to learn. The US get have right to snatch as many Muslims from the streets as they like and desappear them. The populace throws rocks at their houses or businesses. Persons are assaulted, murdered. Mosques and cemeteries get vandalised and torched.

Now Charlie Hebdo is burdening this minority with more humiliation: they deliberately make fun of their religion, for no other purpose: just further humiliation of a minority. And this despicable act has your and Eurogreen's applause.

by Katrin on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 05:23:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But nevertheless you found it the right stuff in order to shut up a woman who defends the human rights of a persecuted minority.

There is no human right to not have your religion mocked.

But good try.

Nobody is arguing "religious privilege". You are inventing that. I am arguing (and consistently arguing so there is no possibility to misunderstand me) that there is a minority that is consistently persecuted and harrassed.

The corollary to that position is that dipping a crucifix in shit in public would be perfectly fine with you, since Christianity is not a persecuted minority religion. If that is in fact what you are arguing, then your position has more merit than I gave you credit for.

But that's not the impression I got.

I also think you're granting far too much weight to what the shrillest fundamentalist preachers are preaching (I don't accept that shrill fundamentalist preachers can speak for their laity, for the same reason I don't accept that the Pope can speak for Catholics). But I will grant that my perception of this discrepancy is based on the chronology of the Danish cartoon dustup, rather than reliable polling.

(The Danish cartoons were met with a Gaelic shrug by the overwhelming majority of Danish Muslims. They only became an issue when a handful of fundamentalist imams -who are even less representative of Danish Muslims than the Pope is of Catholics- went on a propaganda tour to a number of Arab countries with a doctored portfolio. That doctored portfolio included pictures they had found elsewhere, and a number of those pictures were actually offensive even to me. Cue major international incident.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 06:53:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm clipping that for my quotations collection.

(If only Voltaire's famous statement had made oblique references to Catherine the Great.)

-----
sapere aude

by Number 6 on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 09:39:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The last time Charlie Hebdo published idolatry pictures, it was firebombed. That itself is justification enough to publish idolatry pictures again.

That's a strange logic. Charlie Hebdo needlessly but deliberately offended millions of people, including a few thousand nutcases, among whom predictably one or two did a violent act. So a full year later, Charlie Hebdo again needlessly but deliberately offended millions of people. How does that make sense as a reaction? They could have mocked the teachings a Salafi cleric motivating the attackers.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 05:23:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I get the logic. Their right to publish was challenged, including an arson. That is good reason to assert that right again and again until it is no longer challenged.

Not very subtle but quite understandable.

by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 06:11:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series