Paris, anyone?

[P. G. Tipps]

#419.

I don't know what the NHS has to do with the thread topic but I feel that I should respond to set the record straight.

Firstly, I do wish your mother a speedy recovery from her fall and hope you and her now have a period of respite from having to visit hospitals, surgeries, etc. I can assure you are not alone in having. unwelcome experience of serious personal illness, requiring many such visits and, also, the distress of having to care for sick, elderly loved ones. You have my very deep sympathy and understanding.

Secondly, I am not a 'nouveau right-winger' nor a 'vieux' one, either, though I do realise that anyone to the political right of Karl Marx is often termed as such by some stuck in the 'man the barricades' politics of the last century. Unfortunately, as already mentioned, I have had no little recent experience of the NHS and, though I strongly favour its continued existence, I found it very much like any other big organisation. Some doctors and nurses are indeed excellent, others not quite so, and a small minority downright dreadful. This didn't surprise me as it was exactly what I expected and it would have been astonishing to find that everybody employed there is a different sort of human animal from the rest of us.

Multiculturalism is now a fact whether we like it or not. It has huge advantages for society but, again, like everything else, there are some disadvantages, the biggest one with which currently we are now having to come to terms. That is the simple reality. Like it or lump it, in other words.

Furthermore, as a social pragmatist very much stuck in the centre ground of political opinion, an admirer of Catholic Social Principles which were the moral inspiration and guidance enabling post-war Western Europe's economic recovery, and consequently an ardent supporter of it's child, the EU. few might think I have much in common with Farage, whose Party, however, does have the distinct advantage of being free of damaging and self-defeating political-correctness. So even in politicians whose views I do not share I do see certain and even admirable attributes.

So if you wish to pin a 'right-wing' label on some unsuspecting member please pick on someone else ... je suis Liberté ... je ne suis pas Charlie!

[Beef Oven!]

Really Mr. Farage, this would be much more "impressive" if you'd use your own name...

I've just spent 2 days in and out of - NHS surgeries, NHS Dentists, NHS A&E, guiding my poor 93-year old Mother as she gets treatment for her injuries after a bad fall on the stairs.
It would never be worth telling Krystal-Tipps-Farage or any other nouveau right-wingers how many different nationalities were involved in looking after Mum, or how many of them spoke with a Liverpudlian accent. (I'm often asked if I'm "Australian or American, or something" ... there's probably Welsh and Italian blood in there, but mostly I just improvise...). All of our medics were skilful, strong, cheerful, compassionate, at some very extreme hours (not that I've ever minded dusk-to-dawn myself..) and under HUGE pressure after those terrible rightwing ideas, the CCGs, the insouciant contracting-out, that were "put in place" in the Spring of 2013. (I recently waited 6 weeks for an emergency brain scan myself.).

"The Right", more easily identifiable as an active political entity than "The Left" these days (and not to their advantage, at least intellectually) are now usually characterised by - cynicism, hatred, lack of idealism or vision of more or less any kind. Too much power for too long. So the best they can ever do is rubbish all other, spread resentment and xenophobia, or piously and evasively invoke the "need for further discussion"...
Then retreating as usual to "punishment", or MORE tanks and Guns...

They will never understand the beautiful and truthful simplicity of the elderly Polish woman and the young Algerian man, arm-in-arm in the Paris march on Sunday, saying, as I do once again, UNASHAMEDLY

JE SUIS CHARLIE!

And on the cover of Charlie Hebdo today, The Prophet saying tearfully "All Is Forgiven" is an image of HOPE.

I'm very sorry to hear of your mother's accident. I do hope she recovers from her injuries as soon as possible and is as comfortable as the situation allows.

Although there has been more A&E activity over the past two and a half months, than the same time last year, NHS managers and staff haven't really helped themselves, IMV. Straight after Xmas, a number hospitals called staff who were on holiday and asked them to cut their Xmas break short because the hospitals were struggling, and those who worked over Xmas were exhausted. I think this happened on Boxing day, IIRC. This made the headlines.

It's indicative of NHS staff requesting, and being granted holiday at the busiest time of the year for health service providers and operating a 'skeleton' staffing, so staff can be at home with their families over the Xmas break. This, even though accidents and medical emergencies do not respect festive seasons and if anything, increase in incidence.

It is tantamount to a tour operator allowing it's holiday reps annual leave during July and August.

In early January, a number of trusts declared 'major incident' status, meaning that they could not meet demand for services and would only deal with emergencies, cancelling people's operations etc.

IMV, there is a connection between the business of letting as many staff as possible have holiday during Xmas, and being unable to meet demand in early January (that's to say nothing about having to call staff in off their holidays by the time Boxing Day comes).

NHS spokespeople have cited high 'unanticipated' demand for services over Xmas as the reason why they had major problems. But how could it have been unanticipated if from November the increased pressure on the Ambulance services was in all the headlines and record emergency department attendance were experience for at least 5 weeks leading up to Xmas? Logically speaking, the only way it could have been 'unanticipated' would be that they anticipated demand to drop from the unprecedented levels being reported.

It could be argued that in granting themselves holiday during the busiest time of the year, then cancelling elective work immediately after New Year, the NHS is struggling to put the patient first, and deliver a patient focused service. If staff and managers could put themselves in the patient's shoes, it might not happen like that.

And, I do not think that 'insouciant contracting out' or 'right-wing ideas' is the reason why an emergency brain scan should not be undertaken before 6 weeks.

[Richard Barrett]

One thing is however certain (I hope your mum gets over this as soon as possible, Jayne) and that is that whatever problems the NHS has are emphatically not the result of the multiraciality of its staff.

on the cover of Charlie Hebdo today, The Prophet saying tearfully "All Is Forgiven" is an image of HOPE.

And that would indeed herald a new direction for that magazine, and perhaps some careful thought about its double standards and those of many people of the "je suis Charlie" persuasion. As Glenn Greenwald writes in this article, "if a writer who specialized in overtly anti-black or anti-Semitic screeds had been murdered for their ideas, there would be no widespread calls to republish their trash in “solidarity” with their free speech rights," and he reproduces numbers of anti-semitic cartoons from around the world to make his point.

[Ian]

Here’s one aspect that I don’t understand and therefore bothers me:

I don’t know why images of Muhammad (even those that poke fun at him) should be considered offensive.

I can understand why an adherent to a religion will not want the break the rules and annoy the deities that be. But when someone does take that risk surely the most appropriate response should be concern? Concern for the offenders afterlife prospects - by all accounts God does have a trick or two up his sleeve.

I can understand why a believer might think of a prohibited illustration, ‘Blimmey, I’m glad it wasn’t me wot did that‘ But what are the grounds for feeling personally offended? - also bearing in mind that other deals-breakers (like eating sausages) don’t seem to cause the same personal offence.

The reason why this bothers me is that a plausible explanation lies in the realization that hardly anyone has a reason for drawing Muhammad, which means that should making such illustrations become illegal hardly anyone would have to change their ways. Therefore I think it follows that such a legal ban is probably politically possible - even if it’s on the grounds of offence caused rather than it being religious requirement (Which is where the argument should lie!).

It is clear that to throw the same wobbly over sausages is a political non-starter. There is no way that banning sausages is going to happen (at the present time) therefore playing the offensive card on this matter is likely to seriously backfire.

I guess I’m asking if there is a thin end of the wedge element to this?

[ahinton]

I most willingly second that, Sir! Indeed a gentleman of the most noble order.

However, I'm not at all clear if the said late and most celebrated precentor of Hereford Cathedral, Dr Sir Frederick Arthur Gore Ouseley, Bart., ever composed (never mind joined) any marches, the absence of which might automatically disqualify the Reverend Gentleman from ahinton's Preferred List?

I do not have and did not provide a "Preferred List"; I simply cited a handful of names of people who marched on one particular demonstration - no more, no less.

[french frank]

This goes some way to explaining the contradictions in the apparent shifting stances of Charlie Hebdo - with the suggestion that non-French people who are unfamiliar with the magazine misread the messages. I was particularly struck by the explanation of the cover picture depicting a black minister as a monkey:

"In November 2013 a cartoon in Charlie Hebdo depicted the Justice Minister Christiane Taubira, who is black (not literally African, specifically she was born in French Guiana), as a monkey. This has been a very popular image to share on Twitter as evidence that Charlie is a racist publication."

[aeolium]

And I will continue to believe that there is a fundamental distinction between racism (which incidentally is illegal) and opposition to religion, religious ideas and behaviour in the name of religion.

Here is a Muslim who will tomorrow receive another 50 lashes in his sentence of 1000 for supposedly insulting Islam:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabias-history-of-hypocrisy-we-choose-to-ignore-9978493.html

And here are extracts from his writings:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/-sp-saudi-blogger-extracts-raif-badawi

Once we reach the point of self-censorship over religion, then it impacts our ability to scrutinise many areas of behaviour by states and groups of people. We have already seen it with the desire of Israel and some of its western supporters to conflate criticism of Israeli policy in Palestine with anti-semitism. The same kind of reticence may apply when it comes to criticising the behaviour of Islamic states and societies, that criticism may offend, so that appalling ideas and practices go unopposed (particularly when combined with the intellectual tendency to attribute all ills and societal failings to the West). It is the criticism - and, yes, satire - of Christianity in past centuries that has in part contributed to the rise of secularism and the weakening of the power of religious authority in the state and society. Should that be denied for Islam?

For me, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a better document than any created by any religion, and open societies, whatever their faults, are better than closed ones, whatever their virtues. And this holds for all closed societies, whether communist, fascist, or theocratic.

[Richard Barrett]

I don’t know why images of Muhammad (even those that poke fun at him) should be considered offensive.

Then you (like all of us!) need to learn more about Islam rather than viewing it through the prism of more familiar religious beliefs/unbeliefs.

[Richard Barrett]

This goes some way to explaining the contradictions in the apparent shifting stances of Charlie Hebdo - with the suggestion that non-French people who are unfamiliar with the magazine misread the messages.

No doubt they do, but even after the ironic intent of such things within a French context is laboriously explained, it's still nevertheless striking that the kinds of images that regularly occur in that magazine (and particularly, I would say, those concerned with Islam) would never occur in for example any British publication unless the intention were racist. Does this mean that the standards for what is and isn't racist are different in France and elsewhere? Why should a principle of free speech be translated into a necessity to explore its limits through publication of material which can be predicted to inflame the sensibilities of an already oppressed minority?

[Richard Barrett]

Also,

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre last week and just days since the historic Paris unity rally when world leaders stood shoulder-to-shoulder and declared their support for freedom of speech, French authorities have arrested 54 people on charges of "glorifying" or "defending" terrorism.

The French Justice Ministry said that of those arrested, four are minors and several had already been convicted under special measures for immediate sentencing, AP reports. Individuals charged with "inciting terrorism" face a possible 5-year prison term, or up to 7 years for inciting terrorism online. None of those arrested have been linked to the attacks.

Controversial comic Dieudonné was one of those taken into custody Wednesday morning for a Facebook post in which he declared: "Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly"—merging the names of the satire magazine and Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman who killed four hostages at a kosher market on Friday.

Since last week's multiple terrorism attacks that left 17 people dead, "France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism," AP reports.

The irony that the west was rallying to defend a magazine that was attacked for its alleged slander of Islam, while at the same persecuting individuals for voicing their views was not lost on many.

[Ian]

Then you (like all of us!) need to learn more about Islam rather than viewing it through the prism of more familiar religious beliefs/unbeliefs.

Possibly, but these questions have come about because I *have* been learning more about Islam. And they are genuine questions - there might well be good answers that I have yet to have encountered or noticed.

Obviously we can only look at the world through our own senses - is that what you mean by a ‘prism’?

[Flosshilde]

I don’t know why images of Muhammad (even those that poke fun at him) should be considered offensive.

It wasn't so long ago that Cromwell's men (Oliver, not Thomas) were pulling down statues of saints, destroying stained glass & whitewashing over painted walls in churches because images didn't fit in with their particular interpretation of the Bible.

My understanding of the Islamic ban on any depiction of people (and I think animals in general) in art is that the artist would be usurping or immitating god's role in creation.

[Cornet IV]

And I will continue to believe that there is a fundamental distinction between racism (which incidentally is illegal) and opposition to religion, religious ideas and behaviour in the name of religion.

Here is a Muslim who will tomorrow receive another 50 lashes in his sentence of 1000 for supposedly insulting Islam:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabias-history-of-hypocrisy-we-choose-to-ignore-9978493.html

And here are extracts from his writings:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/-sp-saudi-blogger-extracts-raif-badawi

Once we reach the point of self-censorship over religion, then it impacts our ability to scrutinise many areas of behaviour by states and groups of people. We have already seen it with the desire of Israel and some of its western supporters to conflate criticism of Israeli policy in Palestine with anti-semitism. The same kind of reticence may apply when it comes to criticising the behaviour of Islamic states and societies, that criticism may offend, so that appalling ideas and practices go unopposed (particularly when combined with the intellectual tendency to attribute all ills and societal failings to the West). It is the criticism - and, yes, satire - of Christianity in past centuries that has in part contributed to the rise of secularism and the weakening of the power of religious authority in the state and society. Should that be denied for Islam?

For me, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a better document than any created by any religion, and open societies, whatever their faults, are better than closed ones, whatever their virtues. And this holds for all closed societies, whether communist, fascist, or theocratic.

Thank you Aeolium for an argument more reasoned than most.

Whilst doing all this suggested reading, can I commend adding Allison Pearson's contribution to the debate in today's Torygraph? This is an excellent summary of much of that which exercises us.

[Beef Oven!]

This goes some way to explaining the contradictions in the apparent shifting stances of Charlie Hebdo - with the suggestion that non-French people who are unfamiliar with the magazine misread the messages. I was particularly struck by the explanation of the cover picture depicting a black minister as a monkey:

"In November 2013 a cartoon in Charlie Hebdo depicted the Justice Minister Christiane Taubira, who is black (not literally African, specifically she was born in French Guiana), as a monkey. This has been a very popular image to share on Twitter as evidence that Charlie is a racist publication."

Very revealing. Clearly many people have been chewing more than they have bit off, on this subject.

[Richard Barrett]

the intellectual tendency to attribute all ills and societal failings to the West

Where do you see a tendency to attribute all ills and societal failings to the West? It would surely be reasonable to attribute some ills and societal failings to the West, not just because of its colonial past, imperialistic present and so on, but also because this is the society we ourselves live in, most members of this forum anyway, and can reasonably expect to have some insider knowledge of and some small influence over. But all? That's a straw man really. And so many arguments around the present subject seem to hinge on a comparison with Christianity - "Christianity is like this so Islam really should be like this too" - which ignores centuries of divergent history and, yes, the asymmetrical political and economic relationship between the West and most people in the Muslim world. There is always some form of self-censorship, or, as I prefer to call it, respect, when talking about other people's religion. And the plain fact is that public Islamophobia, whether or not it comes in the form of "satire", is serving to make political Islam not less but more intolerant.