terrorist attack in Paris

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are hideous caricatures from three major religions: http://p8.storage.canalblog.com/80/67/177230/63901176.jpg

Here's a fat pope, complete with double chins (the title says "The French are as stupid as the blacks"): http://www.une-autre-histoire.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Charlie-Hebdo.jpg

Here's France's unknown soldier being sodomized by some really ugly french military dude: http://www.le-livre.fr/photos/ROD/ROD0070635.jpg

Honestly, some of their cartoons are offensive. Satire can and is hurtful sometimes. I will say it again, just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should say it! Should you get killed for it? No

Of course I agree that just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should say it. But I'm wondering why you feel the need to say that on a day when those people were killed for saying the thing you find offensive. Maybe just because you have the right to say that doesn't mean you should say it.

It is not so much that I felt the need it to say it but more so because of the current state of world affairs. We always wonder why these things happen, why Muslims hate the West ? why is the gap widening between East and West? Ect. These are very complex conversations to be had and I don't think they should be had with a tunnel vision, ignoring the complex realities surrounding them. Again, I'm not condoning what happened today. What is more insulting to the Prophet saw than satirical cartoons are those who kill innocent people in his name.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

Jeff, you don't know much about CH. they did plenty of cartoons on Jews, as well as on catholic priests, the pope and so on. I am too dumb to be able to post images, otherwise I will post a few samples, but you can find them by yourself. maybe because I am from Europe I have a different sensiblity on satirical cartoons, but I certainly don'd find CH racist.

You are right. I never even heard of the publication until today. Doing some Googling, I see they do treat Jews the same way. Does everyone feel comfortable defending this and similar images:



Perhaps a French-speaker can comment, but according to the page on which I found this picture, the cover is parodying the Holocaust.

Jeff, you keep looking at single cartoons but this satirical magazine has been published in France weekly for years, you should read at least various issues to have an idea of the work and get a sense of what this magazine was (I say was because most of the cartoonists have been killed). also, and this is important, this is a French magazine and it is published for the French public. it is not published in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or even the United States. about this cartoon, I exchanged e-mails with a friend this morning, he is French and jewish, with family members killed during the Holocaust. he knew CH very well , as anybody in France, and likes it and was shocked and heartbroken and wrote how much he admired the courage of these journalists. look at what is going on in France today, with people gathering in the streets all over France. do you really believe that they are all a bunch of racists defending an antisemitic publications?

these people were killed not because they disrepected Islam, but because with their pencils they ridiculed radical Islamists (or whatever you want to call them) and showed that they were not afraid and did not bow before their threats. this massacre was done not only to silence them but also to teach everybody else a lesson. think what you want but better watch what you write or we will come for you

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I feel just as comfortable defending that as the Jewish attorney from the ACLU who defended Neo-Nazis in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977).

Jeff I think you are missing the point here.

Agree. This thread seems to be about reasons for the attack. (Correct me if I'm wrong!) Going down the rabbit hole of asking "were the cartoons offensive?" implies there might be a legitimate discussion to be had about these stereotypes as possible reasons for the attack. IMO, there's not. I think we all agree that these particular caractures might be offensive. But, satire is by definition offensive, and at least CH offends everybody (I posted the three links to CH cartoons above). Also, whether we like it or not, satire often goes beyond somebody's political stance to the point of mocking W's big ears or Boehner's yellow skin. Finally, freedom of speech. So, if you want to have a discussion about whether satire should be limited to somebody's political or religious views, and cartoonists should leave out the size of the nose (Muslims or Jews) or ears (W), that seems like a very different discussion.

I think both of you are missing my point. I am quite sure that the Jewish attorney who defended the Nazis in Skokie made exactly the same distinction I have been discussing. He was defending the right of Nazis to march, not defending Nazi ideology.

Distinct from that, Boehner does have orange skin, Obama has big ears, etc. Exaggerating those characteristics is normal and not offensive. But, not all Arabs and certainly not all Muslims have big noses. What's being displayed in those cartoons are not individuals, but stereotypes. I find the perpetuation of certain stereotypes offensive and not the sort of thing that I want to defend. However, I will defend the right to create and disseminate offensive material, even if I won't defend the material itself. Also, to be clear, material that I don't want to defend includes parodies of the Holocaust.

Again, as much as I dislike some of the cartoons produced by Charlie Hedbo, I strongly support the magazine's right to publish them and totally, unequivocally condemn the murders.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I feel just as comfortable defending that as the Jewish attorney from the ACLU who defended Neo-Nazis in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977).

Jeff I think you are missing the point here.

Agree. This thread seems to be about reasons for the attack. (Correct me if I'm wrong!) Going down the rabbit hole of asking "were the cartoons offensive?" implies there might be a legitimate discussion to be had about these stereotypes as possible reasons for the attack. IMO, there's not. I think we all agree that these particular caractures might be offensive. But, satire is by definition offensive, and at least CH offends everybody (I posted the three links to CH cartoons above). Also, whether we like it or not, satire often goes beyond somebody's political stance to the point of mocking W's big ears or Boehner's yellow skin. Finally, freedom of speech. So, if you want to have a discussion about whether satire should be limited to somebody's political or religious views, and cartoonists should leave out the size of the nose (Muslims or Jews) or ears (W), that seems like a very different discussion.

I think both of you are missing my point. I am quite sure that the Jewish attorney who defended the Nazis in Skokie made exactly the same distinction I have been discussing. He was defending the right of Nazis to march, not defending Nazi ideology.

Distinct from that, Boehner does have orange skin, Obama has big ears, etc. Exaggerating those characteristics is normal and not offensive. But, not all Arabs and certainly not all Muslims have big noses. What's being displayed in those cartoons are not individuals, but stereotypes. I find the perpetuation of certain stereotypes offensive and not the sort of thing that I want to defend. However, I will defend the right to create and disseminate offensive material, even if I won't defend the material itself. Also, to be clear, material that I don't want to defend includes parodies of the Holocaust.

Again, as much as I dislike some of the cartoons produced by Charlie Hedbo, I strongly support the magazine's right to publish them and totally, unequivocally condemn the murders.

I get your point, but I still just don't see why you think the "is the material offensive" question is important right now. I don't think it is. I think what's important right now is the criminal violence, terrorism, tragedy, and assault on free speech. I think an analogy would be when there are murderous attacks on abortion clinics. I'd be pretty pissed if the conversation was all about "well, what the abortion clinic people do is wrong, but that doesn't mean they should be killed for it". I think the appropriate conversation at that point is "THIS IS WRONG." Not, "This is wrong, but the victims really were offensive and bad."
Now, PLEASE don't accuse me of trying to limit YOUR free speech by saying that I think your comments are inappropriate. I'm not by any means saying you shouldn't be allowed to have or state this opinion. But I'm stating *my* opinion that I think you're off-base.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I feel just as comfortable defending that as the Jewish attorney from the ACLU who defended Neo-Nazis in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977).

Jeff I think you are missing the point here.

Agree. This thread seems to be about reasons for the attack. (Correct me if I'm wrong!) Going down the rabbit hole of asking "were the cartoons offensive?" implies there might be a legitimate discussion to be had about these stereotypes as possible reasons for the attack. IMO, there's not. I think we all agree that these particular caractures might be offensive. But, satire is by definition offensive, and at least CH offends everybody (I posted the three links to CH cartoons above). Also, whether we like it or not, satire often goes beyond somebody's political stance to the point of mocking W's big ears or Boehner's yellow skin. Finally, freedom of speech. So, if you want to have a discussion about whether satire should be limited to somebody's political or religious views, and cartoonists should leave out the size of the nose (Muslims or Jews) or ears (W), that seems like a very different discussion.

I think both of you are missing my point. I am quite sure that the Jewish attorney who defended the Nazis in Skokie made exactly the same distinction I have been discussing. He was defending the right of Nazis to march, not defending Nazi ideology.

Distinct from that, Boehner does have orange skin, Obama has big ears, etc. Exaggerating those characteristics is normal and not offensive. But, not all Arabs and certainly not all Muslims have big noses. What's being displayed in those cartoons are not individuals, but stereotypes. I find the perpetuation of certain stereotypes offensive and not the sort of thing that I want to defend. However, I will defend the right to create and disseminate offensive material, even if I won't defend the material itself. Also, to be clear, material that I don't want to defend includes parodies of the Holocaust.

Again, as much as I dislike some of the cartoons produced by Charlie Hedbo, I strongly support the magazine's right to publish them and totally, unequivocally condemn the murders.

OK, you're saying it's OK to mock Boehner's skin (which some say is part of a skin treatment) or Obama's ears, but not to generalize to whole populations. You might be right. We could probably do a thread on that, but I think we agree that's not the point here.

I think why some of us want to keep these conversations very, very distinct is because (a) the question of culpability is a slippery slope, yet (b) degrees of culpability shouldn't matter for freedom of speech. Like Muslima, you're starting down the slippery slope about whether CH was partly at fault. I think some of us are reacting to how this could be construed: I know you're not going there, but others would extend this to arguing that maybe CH deserved some sort of retaliation (a boycott or something), or even that CH had it coming (the ISIS extreme).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I get your point, but I still just don't see why you think the "is the material offensive" question is important right now. I don't think it is. I think what's important right now is the criminal violence, terrorism, tragedy, and assault on free speech. I think an analogy would be when there are murderous attacks on abortion clinics. I'd be pretty pissed if the conversation was all about "well, what the abortion clinic people do is wrong, but that doesn't mean they should be killed for it". I think the appropriate conversation at that point is "THIS IS WRONG." Not, "This is wrong, but the victims really were offensive and bad."
Now, PLEASE don't accuse me of trying to limit YOUR free speech by saying that I think your comments are inappropriate. I'm not by any means saying you shouldn't be allowed to have or state this opinion. But I'm stating *my* opinion that I think you're off-base.

I understand what you are saying. I'm also having a bit of trouble articulating exactly what I want to say. I am looking at this from kind of a wide lens. Assuming that the killers in Paris were Muslim extremists which seems likely based on what we know, their goal was not only to intimidate their critics, but to drive a wider wedge between the West and Muslims. These people aren't stupid. There are plenty of previous examples that demonstrate the West would rally to the side of the magazine. Just look at what happened to "The Interview". People couldn't wait to go see the movie. So, knowing that driving a wedge between the West and Islam is a goal of the killers (again, assuming they are who we think they are), I don't want to contribute to their goal. To the contrary, I would like to do everything within my means to prevent them from accomplishing their goal.

In the Muslim world, people will be hearing the world-wide condemnations of the attack -- with which most of them will agree -- and the full-throated announcements of support for Charlie Hebdo. There is a danger that this second part will be interpreted as support for what many will consider anti-Muslim cartoons. Combine that with plenty of outright anti-Muslim rhetoric coming from the West and there is a real danger that the killers' goal will be furthered as Muslims are further alienated from the West. I think it would be wise to try to eliminate misunderstanding and stress that support for freedom of the press does not mean support for what the press is publishing. That might be a challenge in many Muslim countries in which nothing gets published unless it is supported by the government, but it's still worth trying.

According to this article:

http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/

Charlie Hebdo had been sued 13 times by Catholic organizations. So, clearly, they were equal opportunity offenders. Beyond the geo-political considerations, it probably is good sense for a lot of people to distinguish between the right to publish -- which we support -- and the content -- with which we might disagree.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I get your point, but I still just don't see why you think the "is the material offensive" question is important right now. I don't think it is. I think what's important right now is the criminal violence, terrorism, tragedy, and assault on free speech. I think an analogy would be when there are murderous attacks on abortion clinics. I'd be pretty pissed if the conversation was all about "well, what the abortion clinic people do is wrong, but that doesn't mean they should be killed for it". I think the appropriate conversation at that point is "THIS IS WRONG." Not, "This is wrong, but the victims really were offensive and bad."
Now, PLEASE don't accuse me of trying to limit YOUR free speech by saying that I think your comments are inappropriate. I'm not by any means saying you shouldn't be allowed to have or state this opinion. But I'm stating *my* opinion that I think you're off-base.

I understand what you are saying. I'm also having a bit of trouble articulating exactly what I want to say. I am looking at this from kind of a wide lens. Assuming that the killers in Paris were Muslim extremists which seems likely based on what we know, their goal was not only to intimidate their critics, but to drive a wider wedge between the West and Muslims. These people aren't stupid. There are plenty of previous examples that demonstrate the West would rally to the side of the magazine. Just look at what happened to "The Interview". People couldn't wait to go see the movie. So, knowing that driving a wedge between the West and Islam is a goal of the killers (again, assuming they are who we think they are), I don't want to contribute to their goal. To the contrary, I would like to do everything within my means to prevent them from accomplishing their goal.

In the Muslim world, people will be hearing the world-wide condemnations of the attack -- with which most of them will agree -- and the full-throated announcements of support for Charlie Hebdo. There is a danger that this second part will be interpreted as support for what many will consider anti-Muslim cartoons. Combine that with plenty of outright anti-Muslim rhetoric coming from the West and there is a real danger that the killers' goal will be furthered as Muslims are further alienated from the West. I think it would be wise to try to eliminate misunderstanding and stress that support for freedom of the press does not mean support for what the press is publishing. That might be a challenge in many Muslim countries in which nothing gets published unless it is supported by the government, but it's still worth trying.

According to this article:

http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/

Charlie Hebdo had been sued 13 times by Catholic organizations. So, clearly, they were equal opportunity offenders. Beyond the geo-political considerations, it probably is good sense for a lot of people to distinguish between the right to publish -- which we support -- and the content -- with which we might disagree.

I get that. You don't want the Islamic terrorists to have (more) evidence of Western anti-Muslim sentiment, spurred by this event. Fair enough. But I also think that tying the conversation about this to the "offensiveness" of the material lends undue credibility to that as a basis for violence. I think that the "free speech" part of the world (which is not all Western, btw), needs to be uncompromising. I think that when we hear "well, it was really blasphemous stuff", we should say "SO THE FECK WHAT?" That's not relevant. If you wanted to have a conversation about how offensive it is, you can't start that conversation by killing people. I refuse to have that conversation under those circumstances. You don't get what you want from killing people.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I get that. You don't want the Islamic terrorists to have (more) evidence of Western anti-Muslim sentiment, spurred by this event. Fair enough. But I also think that tying the conversation about this to the "offensiveness" of the material lends undue credibility to that as a basis for violence. I think that the "free speech" part of the world (which is not all Western, btw), needs to be uncompromising. I think that when we hear "well, it was really blasphemous stuff", we should say "SO THE FECK WHAT?" That's not relevant. If you wanted to have a conversation about how offensive it is, you can't start that conversation by killing people. I refuse to have that conversation under those circumstances. You don't get what you want from killing people.

Yeah, this very well said. I'm not sure what the answer is.

[Anonymous]

French press reports that the three suspects have been identified. Ages are 38, 34 (both born in Paris) and 18 (nationality not yet determined ), and residents of a commune in the northwest suburbs of Paris.

[Anonymous]

For me its about appropriate response. Someone uses words to say/write something that you find offensive, then you use words to say/write your criticism, disgust, etc. That would be an appropriate response because it's words vs. words.

What's not appropriate is to murder someone because they used words to offend you or your beliefs.

It's can be a very fine distinction. When is speech/press so hateful that it goes "too far?" Interestingly, international courts have been wrangling with this for years. Some of the Nazi officials who produced propaganda were put on trial postwar. Some were not convicted, because although they made antisemitic statements, they did not explicitly call for people to kill Jews.

Other defendants, including Julius Streicher (publisher of the antisemitic newspaper Der Sturmer) were found guilty because there was clear and convincing evidence that he was calling for the murder of Jews at a time when he knew that the Final Solution was being carried out. Therefore, his propaganda moved out of the realm of hate speech and into incitement for genocide.

This legal precedent was what was used to convict some Rwandas who were making radio broadcasts during the Rwandan genocide. It was another case of incitement to genocide. The broadcasters knew what was happening out in the streets, and they were explicitly telling Hutus to go out and kill their Tutsi neighbors.

To be clear, I'm don't think that Charlie Hebdo falls under the definition of "hate speech". Hate speech generally has a very specific ideological intent/bias behind it. The fact that Charlie Hebdo has published provocative cartoons/articles about multiple religions indicates they are really about satire--an equal opportunity offender.

I'm just explaining why it's possible to support the concept of allowing offensive material to be published, while still agreeing that there are lines that can be crossed that go beyond hate speech.

In this instance the only individuals/groups that have crossed that line are the radical "Islamists" (air quote intentional because they don't represent all of Islam) that explicitly command its followers to commit murder.

[Anonymous]

The enemy has a clear message convert or die. If you stand in the way of Islamic Advance you will be attacked until you submit or die.

Our leaders message and actions are confused, muddled and incoherent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I get your point, but I still just don't see why you think the "is the material offensive" question is important right now. I don't think it is. I think what's important right now is the criminal violence, terrorism, tragedy, and assault on free speech. I think an analogy would be when there are murderous attacks on abortion clinics. I'd be pretty pissed if the conversation was all about "well, what the abortion clinic people do is wrong, but that doesn't mean they should be killed for it". I think the appropriate conversation at that point is "THIS IS WRONG." Not, "This is wrong, but the victims really were offensive and bad."
Now, PLEASE don't accuse me of trying to limit YOUR free speech by saying that I think your comments are inappropriate. I'm not by any means saying you shouldn't be allowed to have or state this opinion. But I'm stating *my* opinion that I think you're off-base.

I understand what you are saying. I'm also having a bit of trouble articulating exactly what I want to say. I am looking at this from kind of a wide lens. Assuming that the killers in Paris were Muslim extremists which seems likely based on what we know, their goal was not only to intimidate their critics, but to drive a wider wedge between the West and Muslims. These people aren't stupid. There are plenty of previous examples that demonstrate the West would rally to the side of the magazine. Just look at what happened to "The Interview". People couldn't wait to go see the movie. So, knowing that driving a wedge between the West and Islam is a goal of the killers (again, assuming they are who we think they are), I don't want to contribute to their goal. To the contrary, I would like to do everything within my means to prevent them from accomplishing their goal.

In the Muslim world, people will be hearing the world-wide condemnations of the attack -- with which most of them will agree -- and the full-throated announcements of support for Charlie Hebdo. There is a danger that this second part will be interpreted as support for what many will consider anti-Muslim cartoons. Combine that with plenty of outright anti-Muslim rhetoric coming from the West and there is a real danger that the killers' goal will be furthered as Muslims are further alienated from the West. I think it would be wise to try to eliminate misunderstanding and stress that support for freedom of the press does not mean support for what the press is publishing. That might be a challenge in many Muslim countries in which nothing gets published unless it is supported by the government, but it's still worth trying.

According to this article:

http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/

Charlie Hebdo had been sued 13 times by Catholic organizations. So, clearly, they were equal opportunity offenders. Beyond the geo-political considerations, it probably is good sense for a lot of people to distinguish between the right to publish -- which we support -- and the content -- with which we might disagree.

I get that. You don't want the Islamic terrorists to have (more) evidence of Western anti-Muslim sentiment, spurred by this event. Fair enough. But I also think that tying the conversation about this to the "offensiveness" of the material lends undue credibility to that as a basis for violence. I think that the "free speech" part of the world (which is not all Western, btw), needs to be uncompromising. I think that when we hear "well, it was really blasphemous stuff", we should say "SO THE FECK WHAT?" That's not relevant. If you wanted to have a conversation about how offensive it is, you can't start that conversation by killing people. I refuse to have that conversation under those circumstances. You don't get what you want from killing people.

Great post. You can't start the conversation by killing people. i'm not sure what else follows that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I get that. You don't want the Islamic terrorists to have (more) evidence of Western anti-Muslim sentiment, spurred by this event. Fair enough. But I also think that tying the conversation about this to the "offensiveness" of the material lends undue credibility to that as a basis for violence. I think that the "free speech" part of the world (which is not all Western, btw), needs to be uncompromising. I think that when we hear "well, it was really blasphemous stuff", we should say "SO THE FECK WHAT?" That's not relevant. If you wanted to have a conversation about how offensive it is, you can't start that conversation by killing people. I refuse to have that conversation under those circumstances. You don't get what you want from killing people.

Great post. You can't start the conversation by killing people. i'm not sure what else follows that.

16:27 here. This is what I was trying to say, worded more articulately than I managed.

What follows? I don't know. But maybe it starts with something like tamping down the knee-jerk bigotry (no, not all Muslims do this), combined with "Listen to all these Muslims who say this isn't the real Islam and that Mohammed would be appalled. But in the end, whether or not you think it's the real Islam, if you live in our society, you have to abide by our values."

[jsteele]

I just saw on Twitter that one of the policemen killed in Paris was a Muslim.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I just saw on Twitter that one of the policemen killed in Paris was a Muslim.

His name was Ahmed. He is the officer seen in the graphic video. He was 42 and had a one-year old girl.