Paris, anyone?

[ahinton]

I was thinking more along the lines of the relevatory limitations of language as seen through a prism of certain Eastern spiritual traditions that understand language ("The Word") relativistically, rather than absolutely, thereby making for greater congruence with Western, evidence-based truth, or truths. Thus in Zen Buddhism, especially, for instance, language is alluded to as an aid to proper living - and there, agreements over ethical and moral matters are considered in terms of what has been found to work, as opposed to set down (one might say overloaded) with supernatural authorisation in works of literature. Hence allusions to not confusing menus with actual meals, or the maps with journeys.

Indeed; fair comment. There's a great deal more to all of this than might meet some eyes...

[Richard Barrett]

given the history and our current military adventurism and drone attacks it ill behoves us to tell any group what would be appropriate conduct

Quite. Many people in the Muslim world (and their coreligionists and sympathisers in the west) see daily evidence the enormous gap between the rhetoric of freedom, democracy and tolerance on the one hand, and the reality of occupation, remote-controlled violence and profiteering on the other.

Something else occurred to me on the freedom-of-speech angle here, continuing from some earlier contributions to this thread (and don't forget that nothing I say on this subject is intended in any way to excuse the murders in Paris!). Looking at the kind of cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo it strikes me that the offending items would never have been published by a British magazine, on the grounds of crassness if not outright racism (and, as I've said, I do think many of them are racist). Does this mean that political satire in the UK is tongue-tied by "political correctness"? I don't think so. I've never heard that opinion from anyone. I would say that satire is alive and well in Britain, yet without feeling the need to publish material like the Charlie Hebdo material we've all seen. One might tentatively say that this is one of the beneficial results of the greater degree of multiculturalism in the UK as opposed to France. Then again, as Robert Fisk writes in today's Independent, the incredibly barbaric (on both sides) Algerian war of independence of 1954-62 casts its shadow over the events under discussion, given that the murderers were indeed of Algerian origin as are the majority of French Muslims, and this has no real equivalent in British history.

[ahinton]

Quite. Many people in the Muslim world (and their coreligionists and sympathisers in the west) see daily evidence the enormous gap between the rhetoric of freedom, democracy and tolerance on the one hand, and the reality of occupation, remote-controlled violence and profiteering on the other.

Something else occurred to me on the freedom-of-speech angle here, continuing from some earlier contributions to this thread (and don't forget that nothing I say on this subject is intended in any way to excuse the murders in Paris!). Looking at the kind of cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo it strikes me that the offending items would never have been published by a British magazine, on the grounds of crassness if not outright racism (and, as I've said, I do think many of them are racist). Does this mean that political satire in the UK is tongue-tied by "political correctness"? I don't think so. I've never heard that opinion from anyone. I would say that satire is alive and well in Britain, yet without feeling the need to publish material like the Charlie Hebdo material we've all seen. One might tentatively say that this is one of the beneficial results of the greater degree of multiculturalism in the UK as opposed to France. Then again, as Robert Fisk writes in today's Independent, the incredibly barbaric (on both sides) Algerian war of independence of 1954-62 casts its shadow over the events under discussion, given that the murderers were indeed of Algerian origin as are the majority of French Muslims, and this has no real equivalent in British history.

A view as balanced as it is pragmatic as it is historically informed (if such use of that phrase be forgivable here!), for which many thanks.

[Quarky]

Many thanks, Richard and S_A, for those enlightening comments on Islam religion, and religions from further East.

What upsets me about Islam is that it seems a great vehicle for males with monster egos. It may, as its proponents say, be intended as a means of creating love and good feeling throughout, but we have been shown the relative ease at which these intentions can be abused. Certainly for females and non-believers , one is presented with a very hard face. This is to be contrasted with religions from further East, which take very great care to analyse the ego and put it in its proper place. I'm looking at Islam, where a great number of its followers choose to live peacefully in Europe; I'm not sure that commercial exploitation by the West of the Mid-East can or ought to explain away apparent defects in Islam.

[Beef Oven!]

Quite. Many people in the Muslim world (and their coreligionists and sympathisers in the west) see daily evidence the enormous gap between the rhetoric of freedom, democracy and tolerance on the one hand, and the reality of occupation, remote-controlled violence and profiteering on the other.

Indeed. As we separate peaceful muslims from ISIS et al, we must hope that muslims can separate us peaceful westerners from our leaders that commit atrocities in our name

Something else occurred to me on the freedom-of-speech angle here, continuing from some earlier contributions to this thread (and don't forget that nothing I say on this subject is intended in any way to excuse the murders in Paris!).

I believe you when you say that you do not seek to excuse the murders in Paris, but you do appear to be presenting an awful lot of mitigation, IMV.

Looking at the kind of cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo it strikes me that the offending items would never have been published by a British magazine, on the grounds of crassness if not outright racism (and, as I've said, I do think many of them are racist). Does this mean that political satire in the UK is tongue-tied by "political correctness"? I don't think so. I've never heard that opinion from anyone. I would say that satire is alive and well in Britain, yet without feeling the need to publish material like the Charlie Hebdo material we've all seen.

One might tentatively say that British satirists, journalists etc do not go in for what you term 'crass' items not because they are such damn good eggs vis-a-vis their French counterparts, but because they are absolutely terrified to do so. Our satirists and journalists will go for anyone and anything else, because they know that they won't be running the risk of being of being summarily executed like Theo van Gogh or an attempted axe murder as in the case of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, and the recent Paris atrocities.

One might tentatively say that this is one of the beneficial results of the greater degree of multiculturalism in the UK as opposed to France. Then again, as Robert Fisk writes in today's Independent, the incredibly barbaric (on both sides) Algerian war of independence of 1954-62 casts its shadow over the events under discussion, given that the murderers were indeed of Algerian origin as are the majority of French Muslims, and this has no real equivalent in British history.

One might tentatively say that the murder of Lee Rigby and the terrorist atrocities of July 2005 in London, are examples of why your perception of a greater degree of multiculturalism in Britain over France, may not be a factor in any of this.

[Richard Tarleton]

it strikes me that the offending items would never have been published by a British magazine, on the grounds of crassness if not outright racism (and, as I've said, I do think many of them are racist). Does this mean that political satire in the UK is tongue-tied by "political correctness"? I don't think so. I've never heard that opinion from anyone. I would say that satire is alive and well in Britain, yet without feeling the need to publish material like the Charlie Hebdo material we've all seen.

Quite right. Sorry it's hidden behind a paywall, but anyone reading The Times yesterday (I think it was) will have seen an excellent article by Ben Macintyre on the differences between satire, and senses of humour generally, here and there. Part of his argument was that the entertainment factor in (say) Private Eye was greater, but no less effective.

[Richard Barrett]

What upsets me about Islam is that it seems a great vehicle for males with monster egos.

I don't think Islam has a monopoly on this by any means, and let's also remember that there are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, a very small proportion of whom use it as an excuse for hatred and violence.

[Richard Barrett]

you do appear to be presenting an awful lot of mitigation

I am offering no mitigation whatsoever.

[Beef Oven!]

I am offering no mitigation

Nor any response to my polite dismantling of your argument in post #77, it would seem.

[P. G. Tipps]

A view as balanced as it is pragmatic as it is historically informed (if such use of that phrase be forgivable here!), for which many thanks.

What you really mean is that you happen to share the view expressed...?

Fair enough!

[Ian Thumwood]

Quite. Many people in the Muslim world (and their coreligionists and sympathisers in the west) see daily evidence the enormous gap between the rhetoric of freedom, democracy and tolerance on the one hand, and the reality of occupation, remote-controlled violence and profiteering on the other.

Something else occurred to me on the freedom-of-speech angle here, continuing from some earlier contributions to this thread (and don't forget that nothing I say on this subject is intended in any way to excuse the murders in Paris!). Looking at the kind of cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo it strikes me that the offending items would never have been published by a British magazine, on the grounds of crassness if not outright racism (and, as I've said, I do think many of them are racist). Does this mean that political satire in the UK is tongue-tied by "political correctness"? I don't think so. I've never heard that opinion from anyone. I would say that satire is alive and well in Britain, yet without feeling the need to publish material like the Charlie Hebdo material we've all seen. One might tentatively say that this is one of the beneficial results of the greater degree of multiculturalism in the UK as opposed to France. Then again, as Robert Fisk writes in today's Independent, the incredibly barbaric (on both sides) Algerian war of independence of 1954-62 casts its shadow over the events under discussion, given that the murderers were indeed of Algerian origin as are the majority of French Muslims, and this has no real equivalent in British history.

Richard

I've got to say that I may disagree with you on music but your comments on this thread are absolutely spot on. I also think the Joe Sacco cartoon was hugely accurate - we should not be twisting this as a "freedom of speech" issue as it is purely a case of a publication making offensive and crass remarks that most right-thinking Britons would distance themselves from. There is no way that this vile attempt at humour would be tolerated in the UK. It is not satire and just pure, inexcusable bile. I do not condone the assassination of these cartoonists but I feel they brought this atrocity upon themselves and the Western world is doing great damage in making this a freedom of speech issue. I can't imagine these kind of cartoons being published without prosecution in the UK even though I feel that this country is largely pretty liberal in most cases. It is strange that the likes of Anjum Choudery is rightly slated for his twisted views yet people this week have been far too quick to support "Charlie Hebdo" which is something equally indefensible. I don't see anyone rushing to support Choudery's "freedom of expression" - even if it is something he probably wouldn't understand himself.

I also can't accept the observation about the Western world not being a threat to the Islamic one - it clearly is albeit I think Islamic extremists certainly offer a more visceral thread whether in Syria, Nigeria or Pakistan. It is not only a clash of religion and culture, but similarly one of technology where those not wishing to be subject to Western culture finding it too invasive and impossible to avoid. I feel this is not just an issue with media or even the internet but Islamic culture is constantly under attack from advertising, the universality of the English language, enhanced and quicker methods of transport, etc and a multitude of subliminal things which make our values encroach on theirs inch by inch. As the world has become smaller, I think Islam has been increasingly under threat from secularism. Islam has, in Western eyes, become something that is resisting secularism and is viewed as counter-enlightenment. I feel there is a battle between these two sets of values which may not be planned but has a momentum about it that we cannot control. In the light of this, I think the West needs to take heed that accepted behaviour / cultural values may not be shared and that with freedom of speech there comes a responsibility to use it wisely and diplomatically. Clearly, despite warning, the contributors of "Charlie Hebdo" refused to do this. I don't think their actions have only clearly brought a lot of sick extremists out of the woodwork but have also created a lot of disappointment and incomprehension to mainstream, French Muslims which, without tact, most "Westerners" still remain unable to recognise and appreciate. Certainly, the reaction of British Muslims has been one of condoning the inexcusable violence but bafflement at how such offensive material is allowed to be published and then held up as some kind of bastion of Western values.

[Beef Oven!]

There is no way that this vile attempt at humour would be tolerated in the UK. It is not satire and just pure, inexcusable bile. I do not condone the assassination of these cartoonists but I feel they brought this atrocity upon themselves and the Western world is doing great damage in making this a freedom of speech issue. I can't imagine these kind of cartoons being published without prosecution in the UK

I'm not sure by what reasoning it can be said that these cartoonists brought summary execution on themselves. I don't think you or RB understand what this is about.

I don't see anyone rushing to support Choudery's "freedom of expression" - even if it is something he probably wouldn't understand himself.

Perhaps no-one needs to defend Choudery, because he has freedom of speech and has not been summarily executed for the obnoxious things he says.

Islamic culture is constantly under attack from advertising, the universality of the English language, enhanced and quicker methods of transport, etc and a multitude of subliminal things...

IMV, this is a desperate and emotional outburst.

[french frank]

Isn't it how you read the satire? It seemed to me that CH was frequently satirising the extremists themselves ("Muhammed outflanked by the fundamentalists") or attacking what we would see as barbaric practices ("100 lashes if you don't die laughing") or attacking what surely would be seen as anti-fundamentalist violence (masked man beheading Muhammed who protests that he is the Prophet and is told to "Shut up, infidel.")

The cartoon below by Banksy was removed from a wall because a member of the public called it racist:

[Maclintick]

Looking at the kind of cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo it strikes me that the offending items would never have been published by a British magazine, on the grounds of crassness if not outright racism (and, as I've said, I do think many of them are racist). Does this mean that political satire in the UK is tongue-tied by "political correctness"? I don't think so. I've never heard that opinion from anyone. I would say that satire is alive and well in Britain, yet without feeling the need to publish material like the Charlie Hebdo material we've all seen. .

Compared to many 18th Cent British anti-monarchical or anti-aristocratic satires by Hogarth or Rowlandson, or their late 20th Cent equivalents TW3, Monty Python or Spitting Image, the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are positively mild. In particular, one featuring the prophet Mohammed cringing at barbarities perpetrated in his name appears apposite & horribly prescient in terms of the Parisian atrocities, but I imagine you may well consider it racist because it depicts a man with a beard & a kalansuwa ? You say that "political satire is alive & well in Britain". Where might that be exactly, apart from the heroic but minority-interest pages of Private Eye ? There are no mainstream outlets worth the name which poke fun at our lords & masters -- how could Boris survive otherwise ? Yours appears to be the cast of mind which views anything hard-hitting as "crass", but there are times when "nuance" & subtlety aren't appropriate, as former-Archbishop RW discovered when he made his comments about the inevitability of Sharia eventually being incorporated into British law. Dream on, Rowan...

[ahinton]

What you really mean is that you happen to share the view expressed...?

Fair enough!

With all that would share it, yes.