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:
A large section of this debate, globally*, is anti-muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-darkie. Look at the people involved in it for crap's sake. How many of them would you want to be allied with?  How many of them are truly anti-clerical when the clerics are wearing dog collars? Unless you're very careful indeed you simply end up bolstering forces we really don't want to support. It doesn't seem that Charlie Hebdo was careful enough if it's being used in the way this diary used it. That's what I meant.

Also, Godwin, Godwin, GODWIN!

[* I'm sure that all the French voices involved are organically certified anti-clericists without the slightest whiff of racism or anti-immigrant dog whistling. France is like that, apparently.]

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 05:29:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
is "there are reactionary forces who don't like darkies and don't like Muslims. Therefore, anything which can be construed as critical of Islam should be self-censored by progressives". I can understand that argument, but I can't respect it.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 07:01:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You do not understand the argument if you are conflating the granting of the right for expression and approval. Charlie Hebdo has every right to publish offending bullshit. But what is their point? Why does it feel the need to be critical of Islam, why now, and why in this form? Don't tell me that a picture book designed to be taken as blasphemous is just "anything which can be construed as critical of Islam".

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 04:35:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series