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:
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