Paris, anyone?

[Beef Oven!]

Secondly, you mention "poking fun at our lords and masters" but actually here we are not talking about lords and masters but an impoverished minority with very little political influence, the subject of institutionalised restrictions (eg. on clothing) and racism, and in many cases (including the present one) the children of a generation brutalised by eight years of colonial war.

Does this not rather depend on how you view influence? For example, although the niqab/burqa is banned in France, blasphemy has been reintroduced as a reality, even though there is no legislation for it. The dominance of religion over public life is something that was a thing of the past and repealing blasphemy was key to that.

Which once more is not to say that French Muslims have any right to go around killing people.

Of course we are with you, on this.

A maxim attributed to H L Mencken states that good journalism should "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable". Neither Charlie Hebdo nor the outlets which in the aftermath of the massacres have reprinted its cartoons can be said to be doing this surely.

But H L Mencken is not the authority on this.

[Richard Barrett]

The problem is that there are important areas where there seems to be a complete dislocation between the values of secular Western states and fundamentalist Islam.

Let's say however the ostensible values of secular Western states, since these are, as I and others have mentioned, not practised to the extent they are preached, particularly where those parts of the world inhabited by darker-skinned peoples are concerned. (Not to mention the ban in France since last July on demonstrations in support of the Palestinian cause.) And what service do we do to those values by (selectively) fetishising the concept of "freedom of speech" and making it basically into another kind of fundamentalist absolute? And if freedom of expression is so important to the French Republic why does it restrict the wearing of traditional dress by Muslims? And if Western values are so sacrosanct why is Saudi Arabia, the most extreme fundamentalist Muslim state in the world, never officially criticised for its decapitations, mutilations, floggings and treatment of women (to name only these)? The contradictions between rhetoric and reality where the "values" you're talking about are concerned aren't of such a different order from the contradiction between those values and the jihadis' values.

[french frank]

That there are other, more tolerant and more progressive, strains within Islam is not to be doubted, but unless they can be given greater voice here and internationally the prospect for good relations between Muslims and non-Muslims is not good.

I agree in every respect with your Msg #104 . And when I looked for the news story about Hassan Nasrallah saying that such actions as those of the Paris assassins were greater offences to Islam than the cartoons, I found the story about the Saudi blogger being sentenced to 1,000 lashes and Abu Hamza being convicted of terrorist charges in the US.

On Richard's point that the cartoons might appear to the dispossessed Muslims in France to be attacking 'their' Islam, perhaps, though how many would routinely read Charlie Hebdo? Most of us would condemn the things that the cartoons were seeking to ridicule. But as with the Banksy cartoon that I posted, people can read satire in the opposite way from that intended. A disaster when the satire, like Charlie Hebdo's, is not subtle.

Moderate Islam must be given its voice, and the global community must help them. There will always, it seems, be young men attracted to rebellion and violence - for any number of causes. The least we can do is marginalise them, rather than give them cause to join with criminals.

[Beef Oven!]

Let's say however the ostensible values of secular Western states, since these are, as I and others have mentioned, not practised to the extent they are preached, particularly where those parts of the world inhabited by darker-skinned peoples are concerned. (Not to mention the ban in France since last July on demonstrations in support of the Palestinian cause.) And what service do we do to those values by (selectively) fetishising the concept of "freedom of speech" and making it basically into another kind of fundamentalist absolute? And if freedom of expression is so important to the French Republic why does it restrict the wearing of traditional dress by Muslims? And if Western values are so sacrosanct why is Saudi Arabia, the most extreme fundamentalist Muslim state in the world, never officially criticised for its decapitations, mutilations, floggings and treatment of women (to name only these)? The contradictions between rhetoric and reality where the "values" you're talking about are concerned aren't of such a different order from the contradiction between those values and the jihadis' values.

Two wrongs make a right?

[MrGongGong]

Two wrongs make a right?

I don't think he is saying that at all.
What I understand from what Richard writes is that this is part of the context.
It IS hypocritical of our 'leaders' to go on about how barbaric it is to behead innocent people yet turn a blind eye to this in Saudi Arabia.
If you don't want people to become 'radicalised' then don't behave as if the people they feel are their brothers and sisters have lives that matter less than your own brothers and sisters.

Illustrating a context isn't the same as condoning.

Several articles I have read have referred to this from Clare Short

'This is a war, this is a serious conflict, untold horrors are being done. The propaganda machine is prolonging the war and it's a legitimate target.'

http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/24/balkans3

If our politicians insist on calling something a "war" then we shouldn't be surprised when dangerous and unstable people take them at their word and start killing people they see as a 'legitimate target'.

[Beef Oven!]

That there are other, more tolerant and more progressive, strains within Islam is not to be doubted, but unless they can be given greater voice here and internationally the prospect for good relations between Muslims and non-Muslims is not good.

I agree with all of your post #104, save for one aspect of your last point.

IMV, there is no need to take a paternal attitude to representatives of Islam by talking of giving a greater voice. They are perfectly capable of articulating and presenting their views. We do, let's not forget, have basic democratic facilities that are available to the muslim voice. For example, The Muslim Council Of Britain is an influential body and have made this statement. Let's hope that MCB encourage dialogue on this - I'm sure the British political system at least, would be able to move things forward with MCB and similar bodies.

[Richard Barrett]

Several articles I have read have referred to this from Clare Short

... which effectively asserts that killing journalists is OK if you call what you're doing a war - a belief shared by the prime minister of "the only democracy in the Middle East" who presided over the killing of 17 journalists in G**a last year, and who today (in a show of hypocrisy extreme even for him) is flying to Paris to march in solidarity with the victims of 7 January.

[Beef Oven!]

I don't think he is saying that at all.
What I understand from what Richard writes is that this is part of the context.
It IS hypocritical of our 'leaders' to go on about how barbaric it is to behead innocent people yet turn a blind eye to this in Saudi Arabia.
If you don't want people to become 'radicalised' then don't behave as if the people they feel are their brothers and sisters have lives that matter less than your own brothers and sisters.

Illustrating a context isn't the same as condoning.

Several articles I have read have referred to this from Clare Short

http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/24/balkans3

If our politicians insist on calling something a "war" then we shouldn't be surprised when dangerous and unstable people take them at their word and start killing people they see as a 'legitimate target'.

If you're saying Saudi Arabia should not be tacitly encouraged by the west, I would agree. But that's not saying very much, and it does not change anything about the current atrocities.

And I don't think even RB is as confused as you, if you are saying that young muslims become radicalised because they see the west turning a blind eye to what goes on in Saudi Arabia.

We all know Claire short is wrong, but most people do not present it as some sort of mitigation for what has happened in France, or especially, citing a causal relationship.

[MrGongGong]

And I don't think even RB is as confused as you, if you are saying that young muslims become radicalised because they see the west turning a blind eye to what goes on in Saudi Arabia.

We all know Claire short is wrong, but most people do not present it as some sort of mitigation for what has happened in France, or especially, citing a causal relationship.

I'm not saying that at all.
Just that its part of the problem.

also what Richard says in msg #112

It's not mitigation and doesn't have a 'casual relationship' but it does indicate a lack of something.

[aeolium]

And what service do we do to those values by (selectively) fetishising the concept of "freedom of speech" and making it basically into another kind of fundamentalist absolute?

I think the great value - not fetish - of permitting criticism of institutions and ideas, particularly oppressive ones, without which it's hard to see the possibility of meaningful and positive change in any society. As an artist how can you not value the freedom of expression on all kinds of subjects which is denied to those in many theocratic and totalitarian societies?

And if freedom of expression is so important to the French Republic why does it restrict the wearing of traditional dress by Muslims? And if Western values are so sacrosanct why is Saudi Arabia, the most extreme fundamentalist Muslim state in the world, never officially criticised for its decapitations, mutilations, floggings and treatment of women (to name only these)? The contradictions between rhetoric and reality where the "values" you're talking about are concerned aren't of such a different order from the contradiction between those values and the jihadis' values.

I don't agree with that French ban, though it was at least subject to a legal challenge to the European Court of Human Rights, something which is not available to those who fall foul of sharia law in Islamic states. And there have been plenty of criticisms of Saudi Arabian human rights abuses by the UNHCR and human rights organisations, as well as commentators in the West. I still think the operation of sharia law in Saudi Arabia - and in other Islamic states - is more significant, and more damaging than the lack of official Western criticism of it (states still have to deal with regimes they find unpleasant). And I totally disagree with your final sentence. The key values underpinning the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly those of free expression, the independent rule of law, the right to a fair trial and the accountability of states and individuals for violations of human rights are extremely important imv. I for one am very thankful to be living under that system of law and not that of sharia.

[Richard Barrett]

As an artist how can you not value the freedom of expression on all kinds of subjects which is denied to those in many theocratic and totalitarian societies?

Well I do of course, but as far as I'm concerned freedom of expression flows from a commitment to democratic self-determination, social justice and responsibility rather than the other way around.

[MrGongGong]

From Michael Rosen

There will be hundreds of thousands of good people demonstrating in Paris today, people who believe in an open, free society, who oppose the murder of people for writing or drawing, who oppose the murder of people because they are Jews. However, at the front of the demonstration, the ones most quoted will be leaders who have waged wars that have killed tens of thousands of innocent people, who have enacted laws which discriminate against minorities in their countries, who have tried to ride the anti-immigrant tiger, who have eagerly waged economic war on the poorest people in their countries, and who create alliances with the very regimes who sustain and support the assassins.

If I was in Paris, I would feel uncomfortable - to say the least - feeling that I was marching 'behind' or 'with' such people. Perhaps, physically, actually in the streets it will feel different - that there are two demonstrations - the leaders' one where these rulers wrap themselves in flags hoping that their show of care and sympathy will make them look dignified and honest, and a people's one where they can show solidarity and sadness about citizens like themselves being killed or the free circulation of ideas being stifled.

One particular piece of dishonesty that seems likely to unfold today is the presence of the leader of Israel. Quite apart from his recent record of sending in troops who killed hundreds of civilians, he is there in order to recruit Jews to emigrate to Israel whilst preventing Palestinians from returning to where they came from. All this can only happen through further dispossession of homes and land of the Palestinians. Nothing he says or does today will help make anything better in France.

I suspect that the press will be full of the suggestion the presence of these leaders will be like some great soothing ointment bathing the pustules of bitterness. It's what the press calls 'solidarity'. We will need other kinds of solidarity to arrive at a society that has real liberty, equality and fraternity for all. There will be hardly one leader on show today who really believes in those words. That's the problem.

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, excellent piece, but it's just what leaders do now, isn't it? All they have left. Marching at the front in their lovely coats. Today, just for today, never mind them... just keep creating scurrilous cartoons with Cams and Ozzy and Francois and Angela and all the rest...

In tears at the scenes from Paris
Je suis une Parisienne, Je Suis Charlie!

[Beef Oven!]

I'm not saying that at all.
Just that its part of the problem.

It's a problem, maybe. But not part of this problem. This issue is self contained.

also what Richard says in msg #112

Which contains little discernible rationale at worst, or is a variation on 'two wrongs make a right' at best.

It's not mitigation and doesn't have a 'casual relationship' but it does indicate a lack of something.

If you don't know what it is that is lacking, or what it means, why say anything?

[MrGongGong]

Which contains little discernible rationale at worst, or is a variation on 'two wrongs make a right' at best.

It's nothing of the sort
Your 'two wrongs make a right' assumption is wrong.

This issue is self contained.

No issue is 'self contained', everything is connected (now who said that?)