The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > 'Je suis Charlie' versus 'Je suis Juif'

'Je suis Charlie' versus 'Je suis Juif'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All
When I am writing this, allegedly one million people from throughout Europe and beyond are marching in Paris under the banners “Je suis Charlie” to show their solidarity with the assassinated five cartoonists of the satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo” (and seven others) who published material highly offensive to Muslims. The names and photos of the five are splashed over all media in support of “the right to offend” as part of our Western values. So be it.

However, very little is being said about the four Jewish victims - Yohan Cohen (22), Yoav Hattab (21), Philippe Braham (40s), Francois-Michel Saada (60) - who just happened to be in the kosher shop when another gunman - related to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist brothers - took them (and eight others) as hostages with the aim to blackmail the police into letting escape the two brothers they had encircled.

Why are the cartoonists who provoked and knowingly offended all Muslims more commemorated and celebrated than the four other victims who did not provoke anybody, and were killed only for being Jews. Also Hitler had apparently killed those who dared to publicly ridicule him, but we commemorate more those who were put to death for no other reason than just being Jews.
Posted by George, Monday, 12 January 2015 2:26:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

It's difficult to be absolute with human human ethics and qualities - one often finds they're likely to be hypocritical in defending things in one sphere while attacking similar notions in another.

World leaders did commemorate the Jews who lost their lives in the Kosher supermarket siege.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-11/charlie-hebdo-world-leaders-historic-march-against-extremism/6011390

"Mr Hollande and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the Grand Synagogue of Paris after the march. Four Jews were killed in the attack on the supermarket.

Following the supermarket attack, in which the gunman Amedy Coulibaly killed four people, the synagogue closed its doors for the first time in decades.

Mr Netanyahu said he appreciated the "very firm position" taken by French leaders against "the new anti-Semitism and terrorism" in France.

"Israel is today at Europe's side, but I would like Europe to be on Israel's side too," he said.

"Those who killed and massacred Jews in a synagogue recently in Israel and those who killed Jews and journalists in Paris are part of the same global terror movement.

"We must condemn them in the same way, we must fight them in the same way."

Now I had great difficulty watching Netanyahu march in solidarity against atrocities in Paris, knowing that his forces recently spent days slaughtering around 2,000 defenceless civilians and injuring around 10,000.

I think I noticed a couple of Saudis in the leader's gathering - and Saudis aren't renowned for allowing their citizens free speech.

In the end "Charlie" doesn't just represent the people killed at the magazine - it represents the principle of democratic freedoms that we take for granted in the West.

Other religions, politicians and cultural icons were lampooned as well by the cartoonists. To imagine that any of them would use that provocation as a reason for a massacre is of course beyond the pale.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 12 January 2015 10:18:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

Thanks for straightening me. I wrote the piece at the time the rally started (Paris is 600 km from where I live). So I was under the influence of the media here that I was following almost continuously since Wednesday lunchtime, where the emphasis was practically only on the five cartoonists, much less on the other 12 victims that had nothing to do with the offending cartoons. Now I know that the huge 1.5 million rally was held on two levels - “freedom of speech” (read “right to offend”) and as commemoration of all of the 17 victims with the speeches that you quote. Probably I should have waited for my reaction until the rally finished.

Nevertheless ,what I was concerned about was that “freedom of speech” - one of our basic Western values - was presented as if including “the right to offend”. I think there are three levels to this.

On the LEGAL level, nobody wants to have laws against offending any, or specified groups of people, something like blasphemy laws used to be (although some countries have hate speech laws protecting special individuals or groups).

On the DECENCY level, I think in our civilised society one should not (unnecessarily) offend (ridicule) other people or groups. I should not be rude to my neighbour, call his deceased mother a whore or something like that, irrespective of what his reaction would be. This, in case of a Christian or Muslim, especially if uneducated, is equivalent to drawing cartoons that ridicule Jesus or Muhammad respectively, irrespective of the reaction one could expect.

On the PRACTICAL level, Europe is going to have a stronger and stronger Muslim population whether we like it or not. It is going to be hard for them to integrate into a culture that considers as one of its basic rights to ridicule what is most sacred to them.

As the rally showed, everybody - Christian, Jew, Muslims or areligious - was abhorred and marched against terror. But I still think the three levels of thinking about offence, especially the last two, should be carefully considered.
Posted by George, Monday, 12 January 2015 11:14:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, George, I do take your points.

And yes, a sizable proportion of Europe is Muslim - and that will only grow over time.

I've given this some thought, because contributing to this forum I've had occasion to "spit chips" when something some other poster has insinuated has riled me.

I'm thinking that if you go up to someone's face and insult them - or intervene in a conversation (whether it be online or in real life) then you are shoving (to use a crude term) your insult into their face, so to speak.

But what of things designed for a wider audience - things that one must "seek out" in order to imbibe them and then become offended?

Also a country may allow such things to be said, but society abounds with smaller sub-forums such as churches, schools other institutions which have their own rules...like this forum, for instance - where one accepts implicitly that an absolute freedom of speech is curtailed.

There are things I can say in public in Australia that I can't say on this forum.

In parliament one is not allowed to refer to another Member of Senator as a "liar", for example.

This whole subject opens up a can of worms.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 12 January 2015 11:57:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The concept of giving offence in regard to religion is a difficult one. I disagree with what I understand of the conduct of the paper and the nature of the ongoing campaign of needling muslims (and others). Apart from the rudeness involved I suspect they played a not insignificant role in helping along the recruiters for militant causes with their attempts to cause offence.

Having said that I'm of the view that some of the beliefs that appear to be core to the muslim and christian faiths are fundamentally insulting in regard to those not of their faiths. For the most part we may choose not to take on board the insults and treat them with the contempt they deserve but the views are still there and many ar quite free in expressing them.

Christian views on the fallen nature of humanity, our sinfull nature and our deservedness of an eternity of torment are hardly expressions of tollerance or respectful of human dignity. For many believers they ar an esential part of the package of their gods plan for salvation of the undeserving by grace.

Muslims often seem very willing to express the view that by virtue of being muslim they are better people thsn non-muslims. There appear to be a range of aspects to this but I don't have the same familiarity with muslim teaching as I have with christian teaching to elaborate further. I have seen enough first hand examples to get the picture.

I don't like the nature of Charlies insults towards others, any attempt by the religious to seek limits on the ability of others to insult their religion (or figures and concepts within the religion) should be tempered by a willingness from those same religions to limit their own insults towards non believers.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 12 January 2015 2:08:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

You wrote “Why are the cartoonists who provoked and knowingly offended all Muslims more commemorated and celebrated than the four other victims who did not provoke anybody, and were killed only for being Jews. Also Hitler had apparently killed those who dared to publicly ridicule him, but we commemorate more those who were put to death for no other reason than just being Jews.”

I don’t know that all Muslims were offended. I think some Muslims feel that anything, no matter how sacred, can be ridiculed or questioned. In Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” he apparently took material from Muslim sources. Other Muslims were offended by the same material. Other Muslims had produced the material.

A verse of the Rubaiyat by Khayyam (1048-1131), mathematician, Muslim, poet and sceptic as translated by Fitzgerald:

The Revelations of Devout and Learn'd
Who rose before us, and as Prophets burn'd,
Are all but Stories, which, awoke from Sleep,
They told their fellows, and to Sleep return'd.

Islam has a tradition of scepticism in addition to other traditions.

Possibly, those who carried banners saying “Je suis Charlie” identified themselves as standing for free speech. They might not have wanted to identify themselves as Jews. Unfortunately being a Jew is in itself provocative to a lot of people.

When the Hutus slaughtered the Tutsi in the Rwandan genocide they not only slaughtered Tutsi, but those Hutus who objected to the slaughter. Possibly in France memories of the Vichy era remain. It was not only dangerous to be a Jew but also to sympathize with Jews.

I think you are a decent, generous and thoughtful person.
Posted by david f, Monday, 12 January 2015 2:24:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd have thought that the 'free speech' the pro Charlie supporters were rallying over would include the right to ridicule Israel and Judaism as well as Islam, but it doesn't. What about the freedom of speech of John Kiriakou, the only person in prison for the C.I.A.’s abominable torture regime because he blew the whistle. Edward Snowden remains a hunted man for divulging information about mass surveillance. Chelsea Manning is serving a thirty-five-year sentence for her role in WikiLeaks. The truth of Western-sponsored state terrorism as practiced by the genocidal Israeli regime is off limits to media commentators under the spurious pretext of "anti-Semitism." Western free speech is nothing but a cynical charade by those in power to maintain their positions of power.
Posted by ybgirp, Monday, 12 January 2015 2:28:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

I agree with Poirot - this has opened up a can of worms.

I also agree with David F., - you are a generous, decent,
and thoughtful person, and then sum.

When all this fades and the dead have been buried - I'm
sure that the trauma will endure. All we can hope is that
something good will come out of it. What we certainly
don't need is more anti-Islamic hostility among the
white French majority, more votes for the Right-Wing
National Front and more bitterness and self-isolation
among the Muslim Community as well as Editors having
second thoughts about every cartoon and every provocative
opinion piece.

I agree with Middle East Commentator Juan Cole who stated
that - "This horrific murder was not a pious protest
against the defamation of a religious icon. It was an
attempt to provoke European society into pogroms against
French Muslims, in hopes of driving recruitment efforts
of militant groups like al- Qaida and the Islamic State."
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 12 January 2015 3:11:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy, David f,

"I also agree with David F., - you are a generous, decent,
and thoughtful person..."

Yup, George's style of interaction is my template to aspire to on OLO.

I can be too reactive and sometimes too big for my boots.

I've had occasion lately to examine my style and my penchant to lump things in one big basket instead of recognising that most people and subjects are way more complex than that.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 12 January 2015 3:16:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A French friend told me that the French are a very cartoon-loving society, and apparently everyone loves reading the comics and cartoons in the daily papers etc.

They look at the cartoonists as talented journalists who have strong messages to portray to the French people. They have far more cartoonists employed in France than in any other European country.

So is it that surprising that they took such offence to the freedom of speech they have always enjoyed, being threatened and the cartoonists being murdered?

I don't think it is an anti-religion or anti-Muslim thing so much as a pro freedom reaction.
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 12 January 2015 3:30:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

Don't pay too much attention to the criticisms
hurled at you by people on this forum who tend to
lump everyone into groups or label people or whose
opinions are rooted in sweeping generalisations.
Remember the old adage - "He's so narow-minded he
can see through keyholes with both eyes." (joke).

I dislike the terms "Left" and "Right" intensely.
The same goes for "Progressives," "Fabians," "Emily-
Listers," and so on -
ad nauseum.
Most people I know have a variety of views on issues.
They can be very broad-minded on some issues and
very conservative on others. After all there are
many facets to one's persona - and things can change
as new facts come up. Nothing is set in concrete -
for most people that is. At least you're capable of
self-analysis - and critique - most thinking people are.
So take it easy my friend, and don't let them get to you.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 12 January 2015 6:56:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline, "I don't think it is an anti-religion or anti-Muslim thing so much as a pro freedom reaction"

I am sure you are right.

From one of my favourite satirists,

"[Tina]Fey said. “[We] cannot back down on free speech in any way. We all have to stand firm on the issue of free speech.”

http://time.com/3658423/tina-fey-free-speech-charlie-hebdo-the-interview/
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 12 January 2015 7:34:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu wrote;

“'Charlie Hebdo' were ill-advised, in fact manifestly wrong, to publish this satirical material in their magazine.”

I agree for a different reason.

What I will not brook is racial vilification and incitement. Unchecked it has lead to some of the greatest loss of life in the modern era.

CH skirted the boundaries and on more than one occasion crossed it. But what is telling is their apparent hypocrisy. After reproducing the Mohammed Cartoons the publication was taken to court in France by an Islamic body claiming the cartoons incited racial hatred. Their case was strengthened soon after 80 Muslim graves were daubed with Swastikas. The court denied the claim on the grounds of free speech.

However when one of their columnists wrote the relatively innocuous remark about the president's son the editor sacked him.

“A Left-wing cartoonist is to go on trial on Tuesday on charges of anti-Semitism for suggesting Jean Sarkozy, the son of the French president, was converting to Judaism for financial reasons.

Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine.
"L'affaire Sine" followed the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 22, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain. Commenting on an unfounded rumour that the president's son planned to convert to Judaism, Sine quipped: "He'll go a long way in life, that little lad."

A high-profile political commentator slammed the column as linking prejudice about Jews and social success. Charlie Hebdo's editor, Philippe Val, asked Sinet to apologise but he refused, exclaiming: "I'd rather cut my balls off."

Mr Val's decision to fire Sine was backed by a group of eminent intellectuals, including the philosopher Bernard-Henry Lévy, but parts of the libertarian Left defended him, citing the right to free speech.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

I imagine a lot of anti-Islam comments on OLO would not pass the muster if couched around Judaism.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 12 January 2015 8:17:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eeek, sorry guys, last post was wrong thread.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 12 January 2015 8:56:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

We have just lived through an intensely emotive experience here in Paris. It was reported direct by French television non-stop, around the clock, since the first hail of bullets mowed down the cartoonists in the newsroom of Charlie Hebdo on Friday 9 January.

There has been no discrimination whatsoever among the 17 victims, by colour, race, religion, profession or social standing. France prides itself as being home to the largest Jewish and Muslim communities in Europe: 600,000 Jews and 6 million Muslims. Each victim has been treated with the same respect and esteem. The family and friends of each of them have been interviewed, honoured and comforted by the media, the general public, the president, the prime minister and the minister of the interior.

Four million people demonstrated spontaneously throughout France on Sunday, of which 2 million in Paris, an historical record.

Judging from the comments of the people interviewed, the general reaction has been similar to yours. People appeared to be more shocked by the gratuitous killing of a young police woman who was attending to a car accident - just because she was wearing a police uniform – as well as the office cleaner who had just arrived for his first day’s work - and the four customers in the grocery store - just because they were presumed to be Jews - than they were at the killing of the cartoonists who, 10 years previously, had offended the jihadists’ religious beliefs.

But it is more complex than that. The attack has several dimensions and overtones:

- a sociological dimension: the deplorable environment in the ghettos on the outskirts of Paris and other major cities which are the breeding grounds of crime and extremism. Religious fanatics feed on the human rubbish heaps and recycle them as human bombs,
- a symbolical dimension: the eternal battle of obscurantism versus enlightenment,
- a religious dimension: religious intolerance, jihadism,
- a political dimension: theocracy versus democracy,
- a legal dimension: France abolished the offence of blasphemy in 1791
- a humanist dimension: freedoms of press and expression

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 12 January 2015 10:18:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Christian views on the fallen nature of humanity, our sinfull nature and our deservedness of an eternity of torment are hardly expressions of tollerance or respectful of human dignity. For many believers they ar an esential part of the package of their gods plan for salvation of the undeserving by grace.'

True Robert puts us all in the same boat. Its only offensive to you because you know its true. Equating it with Islam that demands death to those who refuse to convert is a little ingenuous.
Posted by runner, Monday, 12 January 2015 10:40:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear runner,

Adoption of Christianity or death has been a choice offered to many non-christian people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion tells a bit about it.

St. Olaf, patron saint of Norway, gave the pagan Norse the choice of conversion, the blood-eagle or exile. In the blood eagle the person had his or lungs spread out besides his or her body.

Charlemagne gave the pagan Gauls the choice of beheading or conversion to Christianity.

Richard Fletcher wrote "The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386". The conversion of Europe to Christianity was accompanied by great violence and massacres of those who refused to convert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I tells of the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

"The Christian persecution of Roman religion under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years of his reign in the Eastern Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on former customs of Roman religion, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of Magistrates who did not enforce laws against polytheism, broke up some pagan associations and tolerated attacks on Roman temples.

...

In 393 he issued a comprehensive law that prohibited any public non-Christian religious customs, and was particularly oppressive to Manicheans."

There have been many martyrs of people who were unwilling to abandon their faith in the face of Christian oppression.

The Muslims have followed the Christian example.
Posted by david f, Monday, 12 January 2015 11:06:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

For those who are not familiar with Charlie Hebdo, perhaps I should add that it derides all major religions, without exception, and has been regularly attacked in the courts over the years but, to my knowledge, rarely, if ever, condemned. It prides itself on its secularism.

It was banned on one occasion (for its irreverence to General de Gaulle’s death) but later resuscitated under a new name. Like many French people, I buy it occasionally. The cartoonists are (were) particularly brilliant. Though most people never read it, it has a tremendous prestige throughout the country. It is considered a national treasure that many are quick to defend as though it were a matter of life and death.

Some commentators suggest that it epitomises the caustic French mentality/personality. It is certainly an icon in France of the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 12 January 2015 11:21:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot and Foxy,

>>This whole subject opens up a can of worms. <<

You both are so right, as e.g. the post by R0bert illustrates it: if I am offended too often by things you say that are not to my liking, all communication between us will stop.

If I enter a pub and insult, ridicule a bully with a machine gun (instead of trying to disarm him, or, better, call the police) he might kill not only me but also, say, 12 innocent bystanders, Jews or not. That was the gist of what my original post wanted to point to - the difference between victim and victim.

I agree with Juan Cole, although I think the attempt was rather to generally destabilise France and Europe. After all, it is not only the French Muslims but also the French Jews who feel intimidated, and traditional Christians who feel alienated.

Therefore of all the banners carried at the Paris rally, I liked most the one with only the signs of the three Abrahamic religions. After all, practically all Europeans come with a cultural background rooted in either Christianity or Judaism or Islam, whether or not they appreciate the religious dimensions of their heritage.

Jyllands-Posten (publishers of the original Muhammad cartoons in 2005) and others will not republish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/jyllands-posten-famous-for-muhammad-cartoons-wont-print-charlie-hebdo-drawings). I think it would be better if the motivation for this was to not unnecessarily offend large groups of people, rather than fear of reactions by Islamist bullies.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 8:28:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

>>I think some Muslims feel that anything, no matter how sacred, can be ridiculed or questioned.<<

I do not think there are many Muslims who would think that Muhammad can be ridiculed, see the worldwide reactions to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons in 2005. Questioning soembody's beliefs is not the same thing as ridiculing or caricaturing them.

I looked up your link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion but found no reference to forced conversions to Christianity or death in our century. Also, I cannot see where the practice “if you convert to another religion you face death” comes from following a contemporary Christian example.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the “insider” perspective.

>>(Charlie Hebdo) has a tremendous prestige throughout the country. <<

This is obviously what those who organised the massacre (since it was apparently professionally prepared and executed, although forgetting your ID card in the abandoned car, does not testify to professionalism) were vey well aware of.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 8:32:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f

you continue to sprout your ignorance of Christ's teachings. No wonder you also totally misrepresent Mohammeds teaching. Secularism and Islam have much more in common with each other than Christ's teaching.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 10:05:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

Just "once" I would love to see you displaying the kind of sentiments espoused in Christ's teachings.

If you don't mind me saying, you don't channel him very well.

Where's the love?
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 10:15:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Poirot,

<<Where's the love?>> LOL

Under Poirot's formula --it would seem, a wife whose husband regularly comes home bashes her, trashs the house and abuses the kids should be welcomed with open arms--and no hint of criticism.
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 11:27:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR,

That was an extremely poor analogy.

I'm merely surmising why someone who constantly and severely berates others for their lack of understanding of Christ's teachings - fails to display Christ's fundamental message in his own expression.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 11:48:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear runner,

Certainly there are no contemporary examples of death as an alternate to conversion to Christianity. That is because the secular state prevents such atrocities. The Inquisition and other Christian practices of the past are no longer possible because of the civilising influence of the secular state.

From the hate and contempt you have displayed for those who do not accept your mumbojumbo I am glad that you do not have the power to put your views on others.

May you live in peace.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 12:54:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

This may be of interest to you.

It's taken from the New York Post:

"French Prime Minister declares war on Islam..."

Manuel Valls, the French PM stated -

"We are at war - not a war against religion - not
a war against a civilization - but to defend our
values, which are universal."

"It is a war against terrorism, and radical Islamism -
against everything that would break our solidarity,
our liberty, our fraternity."

"The French people need to stand for freedom of speech
and faith - which in France means keeping religion
separate from government."

"We need standards, values, and authority.
There must be a firm message about the values of the
Republic and secularism."

There's more at the following -

http://nypost.com/2015/01/10/french-prime-minister-declares-war-on-radical-islam/
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 1:20:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its strange that in the light of these appalling murders our govt is thinking about reintroducing legislation so the Australian media can also vilify and humiliate minority groups in this country.

No sane person condones these murders but why are the reasons for provoking these psychopaths not being debated in the media?
Posted by Crowie, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 3:39:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its also interesting that western leaders are pretty much ignoring the daily carnage caused by terrorist groups in Africa and the Middle East but go to jelly when a few westerners are targeted.
How about we treat every victim equally
Posted by Crowie, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 4:24:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crowie, "..why are the reasons for provoking these psychopaths not being debated in the media?"

Maybe for the same reasons that victims of rape are not blamed for encouraging their rapist. Women should dress as they like without fear of rape. They are not meat left out for cats.

Cartoonists should be able to offend without being butchered.

The offenders are not 'psychopaths' either. They are Islamic fundamentalists.

The world need more courageous men and women to speak up and oppose tyranny.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 4:25:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crowie,

France, in particular, has a long tradition of strident free speech, much of it satirical.

Why, when fundamentalists decide to react with a massacre, do people suddenly jump up waving the "provocation" caveat?

Which other religion, politician or cultural icon targeted by the magazine has reacted to Charlie Hebdo's satire by staging a massacre - and if they did, would that also be analysed as a half-deserved by-product of the magazine's provocation?

I posed this on another thread regarding the satire of Irish Catholic clerical life in Father Ted:

"For instance, in one episode of Father Ted, a Bishop ends up with Holy Stone of Clonrichert - (being upgraded to a "class two relic" by the Vatican) inserted in his nether regions...another Bishop is inadvertenly convinced by Dougal that Christianity is a load of tosh, and promptly heads off to India in a Kombi, puffing on a joint - and a third Bishop is killed by a heart attack when a drain spurts out water after someone flushes the loo....all is irreverence, produced in a country that takes its Catholism very seriously...

[In the case of a team of fanatics targeting them] would we for a minute put a caveat on a massacre of the production team of Father Ted on the grounds that it insulted Catholism?"
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 4:56:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot - The politicians and political leaders were in a staged photo, they were in a closed off street with lots of police etc around.

They were in no way part of the others look how nicely dressed they all are. Never let a good photo opportunity get in the way of the truth.

They even had to Photoshop the final pictures that were released.

The caption what a load of rubbish Quote "Photo: French president Francois Hollande and other world leaders led the march in central Paris.

For the true photos follow the link
http://www.blacklistednews.com/A_Photo-Op_and_Photoshop_For_the_Hypocrites/40779/0/38/38/Y/M.html
Posted by Philip S, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 6:34:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Philip..I've seen the reality on twitter.

They did manage to pull off the illusion that they were with the crowd during the actual march.

Lol!..we should've realised!
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 6:41:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I like the way the took multiple photos depending on what country it would be shown in.

Further proof the MSM are just puppets for the politicians and will very rarely give a true account of an event.
Posted by Philip S, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 8:16:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear OnTheBeach,

<<Cartoonists should be able to offend without being butchered.

The offenders are not 'psychopaths' either. They are Islamic fundamentalists.>>

First, yes - they should be able to OFFEND without being butchered.

However, they offend - and that isn't good.

These cartoonists are not 'psychopaths' either. They are secularist fundamentalists.

The problem is that we, ordinary people, are caught in the cross-fire between those two fundamentalist sects.

<<The world need more courageous men and women to speak up and oppose tyranny.>>

Speaking up, or should I say Squeaking up, is not courageous (especially not under constant police escort, as cartoonists will have from now on) - it's like small dogs barking at high pitch when afraid of a bigger dog who barely growls in a low pitch.

Tyranny is created by fear: a dozen people killed is nothing compared with the number of people dying on the same day from natural causes, road accidents, wrong medical prescriptions, domestic violence, drowning, etc. What makes it tyranny is the loud squeaking around it - a victory to terrorism.

Security forces are there to deal objectively and professionally with the situation - the media is only disturbing.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 8:52:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Philip S. & Poirot,

.

Two million people participated in the march in Paris. In view of the huge number, there were two routes between the place de la République and the place de la Nation: the main (direct) route via the Boulevard Voltaire, and a secondary route, much longer.

For security reasons, the 50 « heads of state » who led the main trajectory of the march only walked the first 500 meters along the boulevard Voltaire, separated by about 100 meters from the rest of the marchers and completely surrounded by police as well as their own personal security guards. Those first 500 meters had already been screened and secured by the police the day before, building by building, apartment by apartment as well as the sewage system under the boulevard. On the day of the march, police snipers were positioned on the roof tops along this 500 meters. It was only a symbolical participation. The “heads of state” were all whisked away in special buses at the end of the 500 meter march.

All this was filmed live by French television from start to finish. Naturally, the front line marchers were the most in view. It was on direct and there was no way anybody could tamper with the film. What we did see was France’s previous president, Sarkozy, elbowing his way through to the front line to the limelight next to Netanyahu. It’s a bit of a joke in the French press at the moment.

Rumour has it in France that president Hollande had not intended to invite either Netanyahu or the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas because he did not want to complicate the message of the march. It seems that Netanyahu insisted because two of his ministers (political rivals) were to participate and in view of the current political campaign for the legislative elections in Israel in March he did not want to give them an advantage. Hollande felt obliged to accept but invited Abbas as well.

This Wednesday’s edition of Charlie Hebdo caricatures Muhammad once again :

http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/12/mahomet-en-une-du-charlie-hebdo-de-mercredi_1179193

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 10:16:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

I found this perspective on Charlie Hebdo from a French contributor to Reddit interesting;

“French dude here. Charlie Hebdo is not quite my generation, so I may be totally wrong about the way I see all of this.

French humor, just like US and UK, was way more open a few decades ago. We had magazines (Charlie Hebdo, Fluide Glacial), TV shows and movies (Les Nuls, Les Inconnus), stand up (Bigard, Élie Kakou) and more who were ready to poke fun at all topics, whether they were politics, religion, wealth, history... My favorites are Les Nuls, who touched all of theses topics and more (e.g. a fake commercial for a "no more nails" glue depicting Jesus alive on a cross, very literal grammar Nazis bits...) with, as far as I remember, little to no backslash.

Charlie Hebdo was one of the survivors (or rather a resurection) from this era. The main difference between them and others, is that Charlie was led by a bunch of old guys who didn't care. Which is an amazing thing. Instead of making jokes in context of something controversial, they would directly attack whoever was in the center with no regard for consequences. That was the whole point. Just look at when they changed the name of the journal for "Charia Hebdo" (a pun on Sharia). Brilliant? Yes. Stupid? Just as much. But they did not care. It was already a response to previous threats and all they wanted is to keep pushing it.

I am working in the US and I got news from my mom, who read these her whole life. She told me it's the end of an era. Charlie Hebdo, and the people we lost in this tragedy were the few remaining loud assholes that you can only miss when they're gone.

It's not about free speech, it's about using it. Almost everyone who will read this have the right of free speech. The real question is who will have the balls to push it to its limit.”
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 10:40:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo Paterson - Thanks for the extra info, I did see an article headline regarding Hollande not wanting Netenyahu there but could not access it.
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 14 January 2015 12:53:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

Thanks for the quote. I think it was already G. W. Bush who declared “war on terror”, now Valls wants, in addition to this, wage war also against radical Islamism (I thought all Islamism was radical by definition). I somehow prefer the message of the Sunday rally with its overall emphasis on solidarity of all Europeans against all violent fanatics and crackpots of whatever religious or areligious background.

Dear Poirot,

There is no doubt that Muslims feel about - and some react violently to - caricatures of Muhammad and Koran the same way medieval Christians would react to caricatures of Jesus and the Bible. Of course, today’s post-Enlightenment Christians, however they might feel, will not react violently.

We should remember that Enlightenment was not imported to the Christian West from the outside (say from China) but it grew on its own soil. Therefore I think non-Muslims should encourage a similar development WITHIN Islam (there is even talk about Euroislam); ridiculing or abusing Koran and Muhammad just in order to make use of somebody’s freedom of speech, is counterproductive. I think also the French will eventually learn this. After all Tariq Ramadans, one of the leading advocates of blending Islam into Western culture, as controversial as his views might be, was born in French-speaking Geneva.

Dear SteelRedux,

Thanks for the quote. I know the American perspective on this is somewhat different from the French/European. It is also true that the Ameican problem with "unintegrable" Muslims is much much smaller than the European.

I am also closer to the view that freedom of speech does not have to imply the right to offend.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 14 January 2015 1:23:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Every country is unique. Each has its own particular culture, traditions and history. Even Australia and New Zealand which were one country for over half a century from 1788 to 1841 (at that time it was called the colony of New South Wales), have slightly different traditions and history even though our culture is almost identical. The same goes for Trinidad and Tobago. These two British island colonies were amalgamated in 1898, at about the same time New Zealand was taking the decision not to join the Australian federation. The country became a republic in 1976 and is a member of the British Commonwealth.

I am a third generation Australian, having lived the first 20 years of my life in the bush in Queensland followed by 2 years in Brisbane, 3 years in Sydney and the rest as a globe trotter based in Paris. In my experience, we Australians have much in common with the French, in some ways, more than with our British ancestors. I attribute this to the fact that the British (including some of my ancestors) live on relatively small islands compared with continental Australia and France on the European continent. Also, France is Europe’s leading agricultural country, comparable to Australia which is also a major agricultural country.

These two factors: continental mentality and agricultural livelihood forge a common approach to life with a similar vision and shared values. Nevertheless, the traditions and history of Australia and France are quite different, often complimentary.

There is no equivalent in Australia of the French Revolution. We have not yet severed our umbilical ties with the British Crown. Compared to the French we tend to be conservative, complacent and easy going, usually uninclined to disturb anything or anybody.

Certainly, we can be impolite, pigheaded and obnoxious at times (cf., this forum), but it is difficult to imagine an Australian “Charlie Hebdo”, a satirical magazine that almost nobody buys or reads but which the French hold up as a sacred icon of freedom to be defended at all times, in all circumstances and at all costs.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 14 January 2015 1:28:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

A Japanese friend visited me in Australia. He thought Australia had much in common with Japan. Japanese have a surface politeness, and Australians offer an easy-going exterior, but there is a great undercurrent of violence in both cultures. The high rate of domestic abuse, the bullying in both cultures, the violence by both police forces and other indications of violence pervade both cultures. Although Australia occupies a vast continent the bulk of the population is concentrated in the southeast coastal strip so both countries are essentially urban cultures. Although Japan has dominated China militarily there is a cultural cringe in the awareness of China as the older civilisation similar to the cultural cringe that Australia has to England. The dishes used in Japan are similar to those the Chinese used about a thousand years ago.

My analogies are between the US and Australia. I thought in coming to Australia from the US I might get away from rock and roll and country music but no such luck.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 14 January 2015 8:47:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

I am yet to see Australians charging the Bastille - that's unless they had a few drinks first thus miss their target. Had they managed to reach the Bastille, they would stop because they see a yellow sign by the janitor: "Danger, Do not enter - wet floor" - would it not make a funny caricature? I beg forgiveness from all those who might feel offended, it is not my intention to hurt, only to draw attention to some Australian shortcomings, I have my own.

Drawing caricatures of Louis XVI would be ineffective as the squeaking of a small dog and only cause him to laugh: "Ain't I'm beautiful - send a bag of gold to this artist and invite him to the court to draw us like this on a regular basis" - the same way as the demand "we have no bread" was met by "then eat cakes". When action is called for, words and drawings are useless.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 14 January 2015 8:52:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps offending the worlds entire Muslim population by purposely humiliating their prophet is not a great idea.
The world laughed while the Jews were humiliated all across Europe leading up to WW2 and now we seem to be doing the same to Muslims.

We need to stick together to fight extremism...
Posted by Crowie, Thursday, 15 January 2015 2:47:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Crowie,

Here's an interesting article that backs up
what you're saying - it might be of interest
to you:

http://newmatilda.com/2015/01/14/giving-bigots-more-rights-wrong-response-charlie-hebdo-massacre
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 15 January 2015 2:54:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ YOU KNOW WHO
<<Here's an interesting article that backs up..[New Matilda]>>
OMG! How predictable!
The only surprise is the article doesnt suggest we all convert to Islam ;)
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 15 January 2015 3:13:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear SPQR,

How about your trying to contribute something
productive and constructive to discussions
that actually involve the exchange of information.

You keep coming into discussions with only attempted
put-downs and that has got to stop because it will
quickly ruin a perfectly good online commentary.

If the Forum gets taken up with mostly tit-for-tat
type posting nobody in their right mind will want to
visit much less participate. We've already lost a
great many worthy contributors - you don't want to
end up only talking to "kindred spirits," or yourself.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 15 January 2015 3:31:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

If your definition of << contribut[ing] something productive and constructive to discussions>> is regurgitating huge chunks from New Matilda or its stable mate The Conversation (love that wolf in sheeps clothing name:) then i'm afraid i will give it a miss :)
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 15 January 2015 3:45:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear SPQR,

Not at all. I use a variety of sources as you
well know. "New Matilda" in this case just
happened to be appropriate to the poster I
was responding, and I thought the subject may be of
interest to him.

From you - any intelligent input would be most welcome.
So don't be shy - whether its from "The Australian,"
"Daily Telegraph," "Herald Sun," or any of New Limited
outlets. Surprise us.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 15 January 2015 3:54:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Foxy,

<< any intelligent input would be most welcome>>

Well it is heartening to hear you welcome any input i might generate ...and i probably have already contributed enough this afternoon to occupy your little grey cells for weeks and weeks ...so I am now off to share with friends on FB ;)
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 15 January 2015 4:05:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A distinction should be made between words and action.

Blasphemy, ridicule and criticism are not the same as discrimination in employment housing and education along with depriving individuals of life, liberty and property. The former should be legal in a democratic society, and the latter should not be allowed. Cartoons, no matter how offensive are in the former category. The latter is not. The latter was done to the Jews in Nazi Germany. The latter is criminal to do to anyone in democratic France.

Muslims in contemporary France are an underclass. However, that can be remedied through education and fair employment initiatives. However, blasphemy, ridicule and criticism are the price of living in a democratic society. As long as the line between blasphemy, ridicule and criticism and incitement, harassment and discrimination is not crossed one just has to live with and accept the former.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 15 January 2015 4:37:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear SPQR,

So pleased to hear that you have friends.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 15 January 2015 4:43:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f,

".... I thought in coming to Australia from the US I might get away from rock and roll and country music but no such luck"

I quite like the folk music of the Us, but then that's not 'Country Music' which I also loathe along with rock an' roll.

We do have something in common :)
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 15 January 2015 5:46:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Crowie,

Very wise, I completely agree.

I just want to add that it's not possible to humiliate the prophet, who is long dead.

---

Dear David,

<<blasphemy, ridicule and criticism are the price of living in a democratic society.>>

So one is expected to pay a price for something they did not choose?
Isn't this logically like blaming a woman who has been raped?

Only very few were asked whether they want to be subjected to democracy: the original intention of democracy was to prevent harassment, say by an evil tyrant king - but if democracy itself becomes the cause of harassment, then who needs it?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 15 January 2015 6:28:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear david f

.

You recalled (on page 7 of this thread) :

« A Japanese friend visited me in Australia. He thought Australia had much in common with Japan.»
.

I regret to have to admit that he may well be right.

When I was a kid I used to play war games shooting Japs. They were my enemies. Much later in life I had to do business with them and had difficulty suppressing the instinct of revulsion that surged up inside me every time I saw one. I had never seen any in Australia.

I had been living in Paris for many years before I decided to attend the ANZAC day ceremonies in France at 3 o'clock on a cold winter's morning in a little town called Villers-Bretonneux ( population 4,210). As I had never encountered many Australians living in France I thought I should go and visit the dead ones. The truth of the matter is that there are more Australians under the ground in France than there are above the ground.

I learned that 5,000 young Australians soldiers between 18 and 30 years old, all volunteers, had been literally mowed-down in a few hours during a single battle that the Germans won during the first world war. I couldn’t believe it. From what I can gather, it was due to the pigheaded stupidity of the commanding officers whom I can only qualify as criminals and murderers.

On reflection, the only equivalence I could think of was the Japanese kamikaze pilots during the second world war. But it seems that a number of historians question to what extent the young Japanese “student pilot” kamikazes can truly be considered “volunteers” due to the recruitment methods employed by the senior officers who were desperately fighting a losing battle at the time.

I thought they were crazy, but I suddenly realized that we Australians had done the same thing 25 years earlier and on a much larger scale – and nobody, it seems, has ever questioned the fact that they were truly volunteers, true kamikazes.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 16 January 2015 1:09:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You conjectured (on page 7 of this thread) :

« I am yet to see Australians charging the Bastille … When action is called for, words and drawings are useless. »
.

The Bastille was demolished during the French Revolution in 1789, a year after the first fleet of convict-slaves arrived in Botany Bay. There were no “Australians” at the time, just those 759 convicts that had been deported from the UK as “white slaves” to develop the new British colony called New South Wales (which included New Zealand).

Though slavery was progressively abolished throughout the British Empire with effect from 1 August 1834, white convict-slaves continued to be deported to the colony of New South Wales until 1868, eighty years after the arrival of the first fleet.

We didn’t become fair dinkum Australians until 26 January 1949 when the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 came into effect creating the new status of Australian citizen. Prior to that date we were all British subjects. That’s a long time to wait for a stubby.

I first arrived in Europe in 1965 and landed at Portsmouth in southern England on the “Fair-sky”, an ocean liner. When I walked up to the customs desk with my passport they asked me a number of questions. Noticing that I had an Australian passport, they asked “Do you have a police record?” Surprised, I answered: “No, I didn’t know I needed one!” They nodded compassionately, stamped my passport and let me through.

The “words and drawings” of Charlie Hebdo go through a process of careful scrutiny by the members of the editorial staff, including a qualified in-house lawyer. The magazine is often considered “offensive” by people who never read it. The cartoonists affirm that they are irreverent, never nasty. They are often coarse and vulgar, defiant and impertinent. They attack and ridicule only those who are in a position of superiority and authority, capable of defending themselves. Charlie Hebdo is satirical. It prides itself on its secularism.

Time will tell if “the pen is mightier than the sword”.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 16 January 2015 3:15:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

The Bastille has no physical presence in Australia, but it seems that many Australians carry it around in their minds by believing that they are helpless in the face of authority.

For example, a common Australian expression is "I can't [do such-and-such]" when what is actually meant is that doing so is illegal (and often those who thus make themselves impotent only suspect that it's illegal where in fact there is no law against it!).

The French are very different in this regard, perhaps because historically they demolished the physical, symbolic representation of their inner authoritarian limitations.

<<Time will tell if “the pen is mightier than the sword”.>>

Interesting that you wonder about it, because Muhammad said:

"The most excellent Jihad is that for the conquest of self.
The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr."
- http://muslimcanada.org/hadiths.html#Jihad

(obviously there are some who call themselves Muslims who don't follow his teachings and probably never even bothered to learn them)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 16 January 2015 9:05:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

«… a common Australian expression is "I can't [do such-and-such]" when what is actually meant is that doing so is illegal … The French are very different in this regard, perhaps because historically they demolished the physical, symbolic representation of their inner authoritarian limitations. »
.

That reminds me of when my daughter was a bit less than a year old and we used to put her in her cot to keep her out of harm. Then she cried because she wanted to be free and not imprisoned behind the wooden bars of her cot. I told her I would lower the bars if she agreed to stay in the cot but if she got out again I would put them back up again.

She agreed in her baby language and I lowered the bars. She immediately stopped crying and stayed in the cot. It was then that I realized that I had substituted the physical bars around her body with mental bars inside her head.

That thought did not please me at all. So I told her she could get out if she wanted to but that she should play quietly with her toys in her room and not get up to any mischief. That seemed a more satisfactory solution.

I would not generalise and say that the French do not have barriers in their heads. They raise children too. However, philosophy is a compulsory subject at lycee and critical thought is encouraged. Also, the 18th century French Enlightenment has left its mark. “Revendicatif” is a common word in French, meaning that they are always claiming or demanding some right – whether real or imagined. They are quick to take to the streets to protest, e.g., the student riots of May 1968. Also, while social progress is obtained in Germany through negotiation, in France it is invariably through strikes, riots and demonstrations in the streets.

Perhaps they are more transgressive than Australians. Some are self-proclaimed anarchists. French society seems more mature. In my experience, they generally apply the law with a little more flexibility.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 17 January 2015 7:30:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo Paterson,

The Australian parliament is more authoritarian than the US Congress. In Congress a congressman does not have to follow the party position although he or she usually does. However, he or she is free to follow conscience, wishes of constituents or what he or she feels is the good of the US or the world. In Australia the parliamentarian must follow the dictates of the party room unless the leader specifically allows a conscience vote.

A nation may counter reality by myth. In Australia the myth is the free-spirited larrikin. The reality is that they are mostly a conformist lot.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 17 January 2015 8:17:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David F.,

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.convictcreations.com/research/identity.htm
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 17 January 2015 10:20:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Charlie Hebdo writers and artists that were murdered are clearly victims of Sunni Jihadist terror. They had shown a lot of courage in standing up to threats from Muslim radicals. The office of Charlie Hebdo had already been bombed by Muslims once before. However, they are not the freedom of speech martyrs the media is claiming. They only wanted the the freedom of speech to criticize religion.
Charlie Hebdo was leading the fight AGAINST freedom of speech in other areas.

On 26 April 1996, François Cavanna, Stéphane Charbonnier and Philippe Val filed 173,704 signatures, obtained in 8 months, with the aim of banning the political party Front National. They claimed the party contravened articles 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://ecrans.liberation.fr/ecrans/1996/09/12/les-173-704-signatures-de-charlie-hebdo_183854&prev=searchStéphane Charbonnier was the current editor of Charlie Hebdo and was murdered in the Jihadist attack.

Philippe Val is the former editor, and the man who fired artist Maurice Sinet for “anti-Semitism” in 2009. Sinet made a cartoon that jokingly claimed that Jean Sarkozy, who was marrying a wealth Jewish heiress, would be more successful in life if he formerly converted to Judaism. Sinet was prosecuted for speech crimes, and Val fired him from Chairle Hebdo magazine.

François Cavanna is the founder of Charlie Hebdo magazine and the original editor.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 17 January 2015 11:13:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

Your reference on Australian identity is a long read which I haven't finished.

Think of Switzerland. It is a country without a national identity. It has four national languages - French, German, Italian and Romansch - three religions - Protestant, Catholic and Jewish. It is divided into cantons - each with a predominant ethnicity. Swiss usually base their identity on which ethnic group they belong rather than the country they are citizens of. The Swiss here in Brisbane have clubs based on their ethnic identity - not on their country. German, French and Italian Swiss in Brisbane ignore each other.

With all that lack of what is usually thought to be necessary to form a national identity Switzerland is one of the very few countries with such a long history of stable borders. They have not changed since 1648. Why has a country without a national identity survived so long?

What am I doing here? I was attending a conference at Cambridge in 1980 when I walked into the office of Trinity College and was seized by instant lust.

continued
Posted by david f, Saturday, 17 January 2015 12:04:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

The dear object of my attention was living in Norway and I was living in Connecticut. We spent a wonderful time together until we returned to our homes in Norway and the US. We bid a tearful goodbye at Victoria Station, and we thought we would never see each other again. A couple weeks later I was back in Europe. Philips, the Dutch corporation I worked for sent me to the home office in the Netherlands. I asked them if I could go by way of Norway. That was ok with them as long as I showed up on Monday. We climbed a mountain near her home and looked down on beautiful Lake Øyern. Our evening meal that night included fungi and berries Marie gathered on the mountain. As I went back and forth from the US to the Netherlands I went by way of Norway. Marie came to the Netherlands, and we visited other countries. Eventually Marie came to the US, and we got married. She didn’t particularly like the US and wanted to go back to Australia where she was born, grew up and went to university. Since she came to the US for me I came to Australia for her.

I like the absence of a national identity, the conformity and the lack of conflict in Australia. It's a great place to live although there is too much respect for authority.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 17 January 2015 12:07:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jay of Melbourne,

I agree with you. A while back I was on the editorial board of Social Alternatives and there was an issue with a Marxist guest editor. I suggested having an issue with a fascist guest editor, but the others would not consider it. I left the magazine.

Unless there is a clear and present danger such as inciting a lynch mob I don't favour limitations on speech. The examples you cited did not seem to constitute a clear and present danger. Free speech limited to those who agree with you is not free speech.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 17 January 2015 1:01:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David F.,

Thank You for sharing your experiences.

I learn so much from you.

And for that I am very grateful.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 17 January 2015 1:10:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is interesting that the western media feels that it should be free to insult peoples religious beliefs but they dont think that those they have offended should be free to voice their opinions in protest.

Free speech should be used responsibly and should never be used to incite bigotry, racism, hatred and fear.
Posted by Crowie, Saturday, 17 January 2015 1:12:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Crowie,

It is not the western media that is the most insulting to religion. It is almost any religion for other religions. Judaism has no respect for polytheism. Christianity regards the revelation of Jesus as superseding Judaism. Islam believes that all were originally Muslims, and other religions only have part of the truth. Hinduism believes that whatever form other religions take they are really praying to the Hindu Gods. There is an almost universal contempt of one religion for another differing religion.

I see no reason that the media should mute its criticism of religion which is mild compared to the fact that most religions believe they have a truth denied to others. As far as I can see the western media in general caters to religious feelings inordinately because they want the generally religious public to buy what they have to sell.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 17 January 2015 4:22:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crowie,
I am Christian and I expect criticism, offensive portrayal and denial of my beliefs, It does not cause me to protest publicly with placards and fatwa on my opponents. My scripture tells me to love your opponents, feed your opponents, pray for my opponents welfare.

It never tells me to be offended and to the point of taking up firearms and kill my opponents. Such beliefs is based in primitive pagan belief - that "might is right". Christianity tells me that the meek will inherit the Earth. The others will destroy each other. As Jesus said "Those that live by the sword will die by the sword".
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 17 January 2015 8:57:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus,

You are correct about the biblical saying 'those who live by the sword will die by the sword'.

Jesus probably got that from his knowledge of the Jewish Bible. King David was forbidden to build the temple because he had been a warrior:

1 Chronicles 28:3 But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 17 January 2015 9:32:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

.

You wrote (on page 10 of this thread) :

« … they [the Charlie Hebdo writers and artists] are not the freedom of speech martyrs the media is claiming. They only wanted the freedom of speech to criticize religion. Charlie Hebdo was leading the fight AGAINST freedom of speech in other areas. »
.

The facts you are looking at are perfectly correct, Jay, but your interpretation of them calls for a few comments : firstly, as you point out yourself in your post, Charlie Hebdo waged a vigorous campaign to dissolve the extreme rightist political party “Front National”. That had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with politics.

While it is true to say that Charlie Hebdo regularly attacks religion, religion is by no means the sole target of their satire. It is directed at every “sacred cow” you can think of, without the slightest exception. As I indicated previously on this thread, the cartoonists attack and ridicule only those who are in a position of superiority and authority, capable of defending themselves. Also, the magazine prides itself on its secularism.

To cite another example, as you have surely noticed, successive presidents of the French Republic always present themselves draped in a cloak of dignity and integrity, sometimes in company with their wives and children. Then the news breaks of their extramarital relations with their multiple mistresses. This is the sort of satirical fodder that Charlie Hebdo relishes.

Secondly, the magazine has a permanent in-house lawyer who vets everything before it is published. It is often attacked in the courts but is rarely, if ever, condemned. Not only does it respect the (French) law, but also, as you rightly point out, « it leads the fight AGAINST “freedom of” speech" in other areas » such as racism in all its forms, including anti-Semitism, hate crimes, speech crimes, etc.

What better proof than that which you indicate youself: « Sinet was prosecuted for speech crimes, and Val fired him from Chairle Hebdo magazine ».

No icon is spared or exonerated.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 18 January 2015 1:51:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do the French want to live with Muslims who resent such Muhammad cartoons and will feel alienated or worse, irrespective of what their leaders said in the aftermath of the massacre?

Do the French not rather want their Muslims to get out of their own Middle Ages (a hopeful development that the cartoons did not facilitate at all), because they are certainly not going to get out of France/Europe?

I think the danger of inhibiting the integration of millions of decent Muslims is as serious as that coming from the violent reactions of militant crackpots among them. The latter will feed on the former, but police can fight only the latter, not the former.
Posted by George, Sunday, 18 January 2015 2:28:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

You asked :

« Do the French want to live with Muslims who resent such Muhammad cartoons and will feel alienated or worse, irrespective of what their leaders said in the aftermath of the massacre? »

No. I think the French Muslims will listen to their “leaders” and adopt whatever attitude they recommend. There are numerous on-going debates in the media since the terrorist attacks and the leaders of the major religious denominations appear to be mostly preoccupied with avoiding any possible amalgam of jihadists and Muslims in the minds of the general public.

The message is clear: there should be no discrimination among French citizens according to their religion. I have not heard or read a single word of criticism of Charlie Hebdo by any of the leaders of the three major religions (Catholicism, Islam and Judaism) since the attacks.

Nor have I heard or read a single word of criticism of the French Muslims by the French Jewish leaders in relation to the attack on the Jewish grocery store during which four Jews were killed.
.

« Do the French not rather want their Muslims to get out of their own Middle Ages (a hopeful development that the cartoons did not facilitate at all), because they are certainly not going to get out of France/Europe? »

Some marginal right-wing French commentators are demanding that the government deport the Muslim population “en masse”.
.

« I think the danger of inhibiting the integration of millions of decent Muslims is as serious as that coming from the violent reactions of militant crackpots among them. The latter will feed on the former, but police can fight only the latter, not the former. »

There seems to be a quasi consensus in France for full integration of Muslims and Jews, i.e., everybody should accept Charlie Hebdo and ignore it as the Catholics do.

The majority of Catholics do not take it seriously. Nor are they amused by it. The quasi-consensus is that the Muslims and Jews should do likewise. That is considered part of their integration.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 18 January 2015 5:50:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem that Europe is having with its Muslims seems to me in some respects similar to the problems the US is having with its Tea Party Republicans. The Tea Party Republicans are imbued with fundamentalist religion and reject modernity. Televangelists like Pat Robertson blame hurricanes and other natural disasters on God punishing the wicked US because most Americans have rejected his brand of fundamentalism. Huckabee, a Republican with presidential ambitions, wants to modify the US Constitution to insert mention of God. They reject the findings of science regarding evolution and climate change. Founding fathers of the US such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were men of the Enlightenment who advocated separation of religion and state. Tea Party spokesmen such as Rick Santorum reject that, too. Rick Santorum falsely links church-state separation to communism. David Barton rewrites history to make Jefferson, Madison and Washington fundie bible-bashers. Some of the Christian fundamentalists resort to violence and blow up abortion clinics. They would set up a Christian sharia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology describes some of their theological basis.

In Israel the religious parties want the country to adopt a code of strict Orthodoxy and accept God as a real estate dealer who has assigned them the territory.

One difference between Islam, Christianity and Judaism is that the proportion of those who reject modernity in Islam is much larger. A reactionary Catholic in the US referred to the Dark Ages as the Golden Age of Faith. Maybe we're headed back there.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 18 January 2015 8:18:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How responsible was it of the remaining Charlie Hedbo staff to incite global hatred and violence by further insulting Muslims across the world.
Im beginning to think that the people who work at this useless gutter rag are nothing more than socially retarded morons.
So what has been the result of this latest insult?...Only more unnecessary death, injury, mayhem and a guarantee of more terrorist attacks and lives lost in Paris. I hope its all worth it just to sell a few magazines.
Posted by Crowie, Sunday, 18 January 2015 8:26:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Thanks again for the insider insights.

>>There seems to be a quasi consensus in France for full integration of Muslims and Jews, i.e., everybody should accept Charlie Hebdo and ignore it as the Catholics do.<<

I do not think Jews need to be integrated into Western culture since they have been part of it for centuries. Also, integration (of, say, the Muslim youth in the banlieues) is much more than just accepting and ignoring Charlie Hebdo.

>>I have not heard or read a single word of criticism of Charlie Hebdo by any of the leaders of the three major religions (Catholicism, Islam and Judaism) since the attacks.<<

Which means that none of them voiced publicly such criticism. Catholics and Jews might be privately at most disgusted, but I am afraid the attitude of many imams to the Muhammad caricatures - not only private but also when they preach in the mosques - is much more an explicit condemnation, not a mere disgust.

Dear david f,

I think Europe’s Muslim problem is much more serious than America’s Tea Party problem. And there are other (historical and geographic) factors that make the situation in Europe different from that in the US. I like to read George Freedman’s (head of Stratfor, “the Shadow CIA”) poilitical analyses and predictions. Here is his about that difference: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/europe-rediscovers-nationalism#axzz3OphIb9lE.
Posted by George, Sunday, 18 January 2015 9:31:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear david f,

.

Thanks for that interesting panorama of Tea Party Republicans and Dominion Theology in the US.

We certainly live in a strange world, David. I hope we manage to get out of it in time.

.

Dear Crowie,

.

You ask:

« How responsible was it of the remaining Charlie Hedbo staff to incite global hatred and violence by further insulting Muslims across the world … I hope its all worth it just to sell a few magazines. »

.

It is not just Charlie Hebdo who is responsible for “further insulting Muslims across the world”, Crowie. It is the whole of the French nation. We have witnessed a major uprising here in France right across the country from east to west and from north to south. On one single day, Sunday 11 January, 4 million people took to the streets to demonstrate their full support for that insignificant little magazine that most had never even read in their lives before.

There had already been spontaneous demonstrations in every city, town and village immediately after the massacre. There would have been a riot, perhaps even another revolution if Charlie Hebdo had capitulated to the terrorists. It was no longer just a battle between Charlie Hebdo and the jihadists. France had declared war on the jihadists. It had become a national cause. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind here in France that it was an imperious obligation for Charlie Hebdo not to give in.

There was a smell of gunpowder in the air. The French resistance had risen up once again to defend “la patrie”. The patriots had come to the rescue of what France considers its most precious treasure: “liberté, égalité, fraternité” – freedom first of all and above all.

From an insignificant little magazine with 7,000 paying subscribers. It has suddenly become known worldwide and, at the latest count, now has 150,000 paying subscribers. People queue-up every morning at 5 o’clock in the hope of buying the latest edition of which 5 million copies are being churned off the press night and day.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 18 January 2015 9:51:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

You opine :

« I do not think Jews need to be integrated into Western culture since they have been part of it for centuries. Also, integration (of, say, the Muslim youth in the banlieues) is much more than just accepting and ignoring Charlie Hebdo. »
.

Yes you are right on both counts but, if you will pardon the expression, more and more Jews are “disintegrating” and leaving France for Israel each year with the assistance (including financial assistance) of the Israeli government: 3,293 in 2013, 7,000 in 2014 and probably more than 10,000 in 2015.

France is currently supplying the greatest contingent of migrants to Israel, in the world. According to the Jewish “Consistoire de France”, this is due to a marked increase in anti-Semitism and a persistent climate of insecurity within the Jewish community.

As a result, the French government has finally awakened to the gravity of the situation and implemented a vast programme of security measures aimed at protecting Jewish synagogues, schools and other institutions throughout the country. Ten thousand troops have been mobilised:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/hollande-calls-crisis-meeting-10000-extra-forces-sent-to-protect-people-of-france/2015/01/12/63610982-9a34-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

Integration of the Muslim youth in the ghettos on the outskirts of all the major cities is a vast and complex sociological problem. As I indicated in a previous post on this thread (page 3), the ghettos have become the breeding grounds of crime and extremism. Religious fanatics feed on the human rubbish heaps and recycle them as human bombs.

Even if Charlie Hebdo had never existed we would have had problems with the ghettos which are a real cancer of modern urban society and a growing concern to the government and the French people.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 18 January 2015 10:58:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crowie - good comments "How responsible was it of the remaining Charlie Hebdo staff to incite global hatred and violence by further insulting Muslims across the world.
Im beginning to think that the people who work at this useless gutter rag are nothing more than socially retarded morons.
So what has been the result of this latest insult?...Only more unnecessary death, injury, mayhem and a guarantee of more terrorist attacks and lives lost in Paris..."

No one raised the issue of personal responsibility and acceptance of the consequences of one's actions. Sadly those who were killed at Charlie Hebdo had repeatedly offended the Muslim extremists to the point they provoked a violent reaction, a predictable reaction.

Having the right to exercise Freedom of Speech may be a license to publicly insult anyone or anything, but it does not include a proviso of 'without impunity'.

I equate the Charlie Hebdo publication with walking up to a gang bikers and telling them they all stink and their girlfriends look like pigs. Charlie simply pushed to far and paid the price. It's not right or justified but its also not a surprise. How many others have now needlessly been killed as a direct result of their most recent issue?
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Sunday, 18 January 2015 5:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

.

You wrote :

« Charlie simply pushed too far and paid the price. It's not right or justified but it’s also not a surprise. »
.

In case you may not have seen it, there is an interesting article in The Guardian dated Friday 16 January 2015 by Polly Toynbee entitled “On Charlie Hebdo Pope Francis is using the wife-beater’s defence". Here is the link :

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/16/pope-francis-free-speech-charlie-hebdo?CMP=ema_632

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 18 January 2015 9:45:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

I read Freedman's article. It contained:

“Europe traditionally has been a cradle for nationalism. From the romantic nationalism of the 19th century to the totalitarianism of the 20th century, Europeans have long defined themselves by a strong sentiment of national belonging, often linked to language, ethnicity and religion, and distrust of foreigners. The love for the place you were born, the trust of the people who surround you, and the fear of what strangers could do to you and your community is a basic human feeling. But in Europe, nationalism is particularly notable for the sheer scale of death and destruction it historically has brought to the Continent.”

The logic of the above is faulty. Europe traditionally has not been a cradle for nationalism. Nationalism based on a unity of national feeling shared by a group identifying themselves with a nation state is largely a product of the romantic period. The article correctly states “From the romantic nationalism of the 19th century to the totalitarianism of the 20th century”. Before the romantic nationalism of the 19th century the type of nationalism the article describes did not exist. The nation-state was ruled by dynasts in general who ruled a conglomerate of peoples of varying ethnicities, languages and later religions. The French Revolution was not a nationalist uprising. It was a revolt against an oppressive ruling class. Its theoretical underpinnings resided in the document called “The Rights of Man”. That document maintained that all men had certain rights (It was not concerned with either women or French people).

continued
Posted by david f, Sunday, 18 January 2015 10:02:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

It is true as the article says that “The love for the place you were born, the trust of the people who surround you, and the fear of what strangers could do to you and your community is a basic human feeling.” However, until the 19th century these feelings did not form into nationalism. Just as ethnic nationalism appeared on the scene in the nineteenth century it can disappear. The European Union is an attempt to override the nationalism which has bred the nineteenth and twentieth century wars. Nationalism exists and is powerful. However, there are sign that it is breaking up – both to create a super unity in the form of a European community and a separateness in the various movements of smaller entities to break away from the nation-states. Examples of the latter are the independence movements of the Welch, Basques, Catalonians and Scots.

I see the Tea Party movement as a similar type of devolution as is the Muslim actions which are fueled by a feeling of separateness from the surrounding cultures. They are both a revolt against modernity as is the Jewish fundamentalists in Israel who think of God as a real estate dealer and the fundamentalist Christians in the US who additionally to their involvement in the Tea Party blow up abortion clinics and murder the people in them.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 18 January 2015 10:02:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When you get down to the nity-grity of it all, to integrate Muslims into society then first the Koran must be integrated.

Best of luck, World.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 19 January 2015 7:07:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Thanks again for the info. Integration into a prevalent culture and moving into a country are not the same thing. After 1989 many Jews came to Germany with their families from the former USSR (I think that was a condition for allowing reunification). Nobody speaks about integration problems here: the religion their culture was based on was already “integrated” into Europe; the same with ethnic Germans, former Soviet citizens (as a consequence of these two, Russian is the third most spoken language at homes in Germany, after German and Turkish). I also agree that the banlieue problem preexisted the cartoons, but they certainly did not contribute to a solution, whatever it might be.

By the way, that is an interesting link to the Guardian article, showing that some people manage to alienate in one hit two of their minorities, Catholics and Muslims. Unfortunately, in Africa, where there are not many atheists, it is the Christians who had to pay with their lives, so that some European cartoonists could enjoy the luxury of what they regard as free speech.

The article ends with reference to “scurrilous outriders like Charlie Hebdo (who) can keep mocking church and mosque.” Well, the Pope certainly did not object to “mocking church and mosque” and probably most imams also see the difference between mocking the mosque and mocking Muhammad. “One can understand a satire about a priest, but not about God. … As for Islam, we could have an understanding for satires about their customs or behaviour but not about Koran, Allah or the Prophet. (Cardinal Achille Silvestrini in 2006).
Posted by George, Monday, 19 January 2015 8:31:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

Sorry, but I did not spot a contradiction between the quote from Freedman and your elaboration on the theme. Freedman is not dealing with history but contemporary situation. Nationalism is indeed a complicated problem, with a different tradition in Western and Eastern Europe. Hans Kohn’s (The Idea of Nationalism, Macmillan 1944) distinction between ‘voluntary, civic’ (West) and ‘organic ethnic’ (East) nationalism might be a simplification, but I think he has a point.

>>Nationalism exists and is powerful. However, there are sign that it is breaking up – both to create a super unity in the form of a European community and a separateness in the various movements of smaller entities to break away from the nation-states. Examples of the latter are the independence movements of the Welch, Basques, Catalonians and Scots.<<

Yes, but. EU is still a nice ideal, but it is loosing on popularity both by those who would prefer to cling to their nation state (Western or political nationalists) and those who would like to break away from their nation state (ethnic nationalists) also because they do not protect them sufficiently from the Brussels bureaucrats. Both these trends are feeding on the euro and general economic crisis, mainly in the South, and the pressure from the US to wage an economic (and many fear that more) war on Russia, rather than concentrate on the Islamists problem.

Tea Party and Jewish fundamentalists grew out of the prevailing culture in those countries, Islam came to post-Christian Europe from a culture hitherto seen as alien.
Posted by George, Monday, 19 January 2015 8:33:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

You wrote: "Islam came to post-Christian Europe from a culture hitherto seen as alien."

I don't think that matters. Jews had been living in the bounds of what became Germany since the days of the Roman Empire. The hostility of the Nazis towards the Jews could not have been greater if they had come from outside the bounds of Germany.
Posted by david f, Monday, 19 January 2015 11:33:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

I agree, however the intensity of hostilities towards parts of population - and history probably doesn’t know of a greater “hostility” than that of the Nazis towards Jews - does not depend on whether the targeted group can or wants to be integrated. Of all the things Jews were accused of, inability or unwillingness to integrate was not among them (actually I think the word in this sense did not exist then).
Posted by George, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 12:00:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

« I do not think Jews need to be integrated into Western culture since they have been part of it for centuries. Also, integration (of, say, the Muslim youth in the banlieues) is much more than just accepting and ignoring Charlie Hebdo. »

I thought I should mention that though there were a few isolated individual Jews in France beginning in the first century through to the fifth century, the first Jewish communities were documented in 465 in Vannes (Brittany), in 524 in Valence and in 533 in Orleans.

Migration to France increased over the succeding centuries as problems arose in other European countries. More than 25,000 Jews either settled in France or transited through it between 1881 and 1914.

Whereas the beginnings of Arab - Muslim presence in France dates back to 716 when the first group of Muslim soldiers crossed the Pyrenees Mountains infiltrating the Spanish-French borders to occupy the city of Norborne turning its Cathedral into a Mosque.

The Muslims continued their advance and reached Lyon in 726. In 731 they occupied Bordeaux. They were finally defeated by Duke Eudes and Charles Martel near Poitiers in 732. Some Muslims were taken captive by the French and deported to the north of France where they settled permanently. That was regarded as the real first Muslim Arab existence in France.

Following that, the expansion of the Muslim population in France was very similar to that of the Jews, both starting roughly from the beginning of the 20th century. The big difference with the Jews was that the Muslims were almost exclusively labourers imported from France’s Arab Maghreb colonies in Algeria and Marocco. The huge Metro tunnels in Paris and Lyon were built by Arab labourers. They also participated actively, at home and abroad, in the various wars in which the country was engaged, including the two World Wars.

Conclusion : the duration of the historical connections of Jews and Muslims with France are not all that different. Integration, or lack of it is certainly due to other factors.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 2:08:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo Paterson wrote: "The Muslims continued their advance and reached Lyon in 726. In 731 they occupied Bordeaux. They were finally defeated by Duke Eudes and Charles Martel near Poitiers in 732. Some Muslims were taken captive by the French and deported to the north of France where they settled permanently. That was regarded as the real first Muslim Arab existence in France."

At that time Christian Europe was in the Dark Ages, and Islam was fairly enlightened. Algorithm, algebra, Deneb, alembic and other words pertaining to mathematics, astronomy and chemistry are of Muslim origin and entered our language from the Muslim world. Islamic universities had Buddhist, Jewish and Christian students while Christian universities were only for Christians. In the fourteenth century Islam entered their own Dark Ages. Ijtihad, the spirit of enquiry became limited to consideration of theology, and the great Muslim universities became little more than theological seminaries. If Muslims had won at Poitiers and had moved on into Europe possibly the Dark Ages would have been ended at that time, and Islam would not have moved later into its own Dark Ages. Perhaps the wrong side won at Poitiers or Tours.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 5:10:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Thanks again for the info.

>>The Muslims continued their advance and reached Lyon in 726. In 731 they occupied Bordeaux. They were finally defeated by Duke Eudes and Charles Martel near Poitiers in 732. Some Muslims were taken captive by the French and deported to the north of France where they settled permanently. That was regarded as the real first Muslim Arab existence in France.<<

I am not sure that the Muslim settlements of the 8th century survived as such until modern times, and that they somehow relate to contemporary Muslim immigrants. On the pther hand, the presence of Jews in Europe is continuous since early centuries.

Budapest was under Turkish (Otoman) occupation between 1541 and 1686 and my native Bratislava (Pressburg, Pozsony) became the capital of Hungary during that time. Nevertheless, Hungarians are “proud” that when the Turkish occupiers eventually left they did not leave one Muslim Turk or Hungarian Muslim convert behind (as they did among South Slavs). So if (or rather when) new Muslim migrants come also to Hungary, from or not from Turkey, they will be a foreign element (discontinuous from the 16-17th centiury occupiers) and the question of integration will have to be raised.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 8:22:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

Hungary has a different history from what was Yugoslavia. There the Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox all stem from the same people. At one time they were all Orthodox stemming from the division of the Roman Empire into East and West and the schism of 1054. With the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans the upper classes largely became Muslim to preserve their position. Currently the Muslims are the poorest group. Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina became part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the result was that many became Catholic. The Serbs and Croats speak approximately the same language, but the Orthodox Serbs use the Cyrillic alphabet, and the Catholic Croats use the Latin alphabet. People with a common ancestry kill each other because of religious differences.

"Black Lamb & Grey Falcon by Rebecca West in telling of her travels through that area incorporates its history. It's a terrific book.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 8:55:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear david f

.

« At that time Christian Europe was in the Dark Ages, and Islam was fairly enlightened. Algorithm, algebra, Deneb, alembic and other words pertaining to mathematics, astronomy and chemistry are of Muslim origin and entered our language from the Muslim world. Islamic universities had Buddhist, Jewish and Christian students while Christian universities were only for Christians. »
.

Goodness knows I’m not a scholar, David, but it makes me sad to think that all that knowledge was neglected and never progressed. I seem to recall having read somewhere that some of the ancient Greek philosophers, Socrates, I think, in particular, travelled to Egypt and found inspiration there.

What a terrible tragedy to see such a brilliant civilisation become so barren. I suspect politics had something to do with it. I sometimes wish I had climbed that tree of knowledge.

And I ask “who is this god who commands mankind to remain ignorant ?”

As Benjamin Franklin is reported to have observed :

"Genius without education is like silver in the mine"

As for me, I place my hope in attaining the sort of education Aristotle claimed to perceive :

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

That is my only consolation – but, then, perhaps I am just kidding myself.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 9:22:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo Paterson,

The knowledge wasn't wasted. The advances made during early Islam found their way to the west and helped spark the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Averroes (Ibn Rushd - 1126-1198) and Avicenna (Ibn Sina - 980-1037) were well known and influential in the west. The most common mangrove found around Australia is Avicennia marina named so by Linnaeus. Linnaeus never saw the living plant but named it from specimens what were sent to him. He felt he owed a debt to Avicenna, scientist, doctor and philosopher, and named the mangrove after him. Ibn Sina influenced Europe much more than his own world. His ideas were attacked by the Islamic clergy as Islam slid into its own Dark Ages where they still are.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 11:24:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

>> With the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans the upper classes largely became Muslim to preserve their position.<<

Yes, this is how I have known it. What I wanted to point out was, that this was not the case with Hungarians (or if, it did not last after the occupiers left). However, I think we have deviated too much from the original topic.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 8:49:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear david f,

.

« The knowledge wasn't wasted. The advances made during early Islam found their way to the west and helped spark the Renaissance and the Enlightenment … »
.

Thanks for the confirmation. I suspected that to be the case, otherwise I suppose we wouldn’t be where we are today. My concern was that all that knowledge was neglected and never progressed by those brilliant Arab-Islamic civilisations which, as you indicate, have stagnated – if not regressed - ever since.

If religion was so inextricably entwined with science, as it seems to have been in ancient times, I suppose it is possible that after having initially contributed to the early development of science, religion succeeded in having it eliminated when the religious leaders realised the threat science represented to their authority.

It seems there is evidence of interaction among religion, astronomy and architecture in the ancient civilisations of Egypt, Mexico and Cambodia and, perhaps, also in a number of so-called “lost civilisations”. The mystery, of course, is just how this phenomenon developed in different parts of the world in those ancient times when there were no means of communication.

I am amazed at the apparent ease with which civilisations are deregulated and end up in the dustbin of time. Not only are they fragile, they are also perishable :

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/09/new-evidence-lost-civilizations-really-existed.html

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 10:04:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo Paterson,

Other civilisations have disappeared. Over four thousand years ago there was a civilisation centred on the Indus River with the cities of Harappa and Mohenjo-dara. They were literate and left inscriptions which have not been deciphered. Probably as a result of invasion the civilisation disappeared, and literacy did not reappear in the area for a thousand years. When it did reappear the new symbols had no relation to the older script.

Dear George,

While Catholics and Protestants were tearing each apart in the Wars of the Reformation there was an island of peace. There were Lutherans, Calvinists and Catholics within the Ottoman domains. The Ottomans demanded that the different kinds of Christians live in peace with one another, and that's what happened. Diarmaid MacCulloch's "The Reformation" tells about it.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 11:07:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

I am not a historian, but folkloristic memories (folksongs) of e.g. the Hungarians and Slovaks certainly do not testify to those times as “islands of peace”. Or whether Protestants were happier with the occupation than Catholics as the following might indicate:

“Protestantism and Islam entered into contact during the 16th century… As both were in conflict with the Austrian Holy Roman Emperor and his Catholic allies, numerous exchanges occurred, exploring religious similarities and the possibility of trade and military alliances.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_and_Islam).
Posted by George, Thursday, 22 January 2015 7:39:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear David and George,

.

There are a couple of things I thought I should mention :

The first is that it was reported in the French media that the elder of the two Kouachi brothers who attacked Charlie Hebdo had trained in an Al-Qaeda camp in Yemen for a few months in 2011 and it was there that he saw a photo of Charb, the editor of the satirical magazine, on a hit list displayed on a notice board.

CNN footage of the camp and the hit list was shown on French TV.
According to the CIA, Saïd, the elder brother, had attended a Muslim fundamentalist university called al-Imane in the capital, Sanaa in 2009.

Both brothers were born in Paris of Algerian parents. Like most French people, they may possibly have heard of Charlie Hebdo but it is highly unlikely they ever saw it let alone read it.

It was in Yemen that they received the assignment to attack Charlie Hebdo and assassinate Charb. The day of the attack they went to the wrong address and had some difficulty finding it. When they finally located the newsroom of the magazine they asked who was Charb and killed him first before mowing down the other cartoonists and journalists. Some managed to survive to tell the story.

The other thing I wanted to mention was that according to a special report on the jihadists requested by François Hollande, there are about 1,300 French jihadists, most of whom are in Syria. Their number has increased considerably over the past two years. Most of them identify ideologically as Salafis and are “encouraged” by Wahhabis ( a particular orientation of Salafism), both of whom are part of the Sunni movement of Islam. They represent the dominant minority in Saudi Arabia and are also present in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait.

Though I have not seen the report, its author was interviewed by “Le Monde”, a reputable French newspaper. He stressed that the terrorists should be referred to as Salafists, not Muslims - who have nothing to do with terrorism.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 22 January 2015 8:02:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

<<Though I have not seen the report, its author was interviewed by “Le Monde”, a reputable French newspaper. He stressed that the terrorists should be referred to as Salafists, not Muslims - who have nothing to do with terrorism.>>

The above statement is silly and wrong. All Salafists are Muslims, and some Muslims have much to do with terrorism.

<<Most of them identify ideologically as Salafis and are “encouraged” by Wahhabis ( a particular orientation of Salafism), both of whom are part of the Sunni movement of Islam.>>

The Salafists are Sunni Muslims.

Dear George,

I regard the Wars of the Reformation as a Civil War within the Catholic Church not within Christendom itself as Orthodox Christians were not involved. Unlike the US Civil War the secessionists were able to secede successfully. In civil wars as in other wars each side seeks allies. The article you referred me to told of similarities between Islam and Protestantism. When I was a soldier in WW2 in the US army we were shown a series of propaganda films called “Why We Fight.” The Soviet Union was presented as populated by people who were much like us. Later during the Cold War the US emphasised how different we were from the ‘godless’ communists. In the 1950s the US changed the national motto from ‘e pluribus unum’ (one out of many) to ‘In God we Trust’. The pledge of allegiance was changed from ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all’ to ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all’. These changes were propaganda exercises. There have been legal attempts to restore the former pledge.

The similarity between Protestantism and Islam was a wartime propaganda exercise. Both Protestantism and Catholicism centre around the worship of Jesus and are much more like each other than either is to Islam. The two branches of Christianity may eventually reunite. I doubt that either branch will unite with Islam.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 22 January 2015 9:53:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<I am not a historian>>

Dear George,

You have repeated that disclaimer several times. One need not be a historian to have opinions on history. Even if one is a historian one generally concentrates on specific periods in specific areas at specific times. Outside of their specialised areas of study they are as much a lay person as the rest of us. People are often overeager to accept the voice of authority. The voices of authority may be as subject to prejudices as any of the rest of us. Historians often have ideological predilections which determine their view of history.

Professional historians as well as professional economists often disagree. These disagreements are often most vociferous in their areas of specialty.

I did a course in the history of early nineteenth century English protest movements. There was a schism in the Manchester Methodist Church in England. Some of the congregation went off to form their congregation when the governing board wished to put an organ in the church. Methodist historians interpreted this as a doctrinaire difference between those who wanted to retain the simplicity of Methodism as against those who wanted to be closer to the practices of Anglicanism. Marxist historians perceived the split as a instance of class conflict. The congregation was mainly workers, and the board was made up of industrialists.

I got a look at the source documents and came up with a different idea. The board wanted to finance the organ by raising dues. They apparently looked at it as a capital raising venture and, as is done in such ventures, wanted to get somebody else to invest the money. Most of the congregation did not want to pay the increased dues. I think it was that simple, but both Marxist and Methodist historians had ideological blinders. IMHO if the board had come up the money for the organ there would not have been a schism.

Although you are not a historian you have sound instincts and a reasoning brain. You may be right while they may be wrong.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 22 January 2015 11:09:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear david f,

.

« <<Though I have not seen the report, its author was interviewed by “Le Monde”, a reputable French newspaper. He stressed that the terrorists should be referred to as Salafists, not Muslims - who have nothing to do with terrorism.>>

The above statement is silly and wrong. All Salafists are Muslims, and some Muslims have much to do with terrorism. »
.

At the latest count, there are 66,300,000 people living in France, of which about 5 million Muslims and 600,000 Jews – 40% of the total population (26.5 million) declare that they have no religion. The black African population is estimated at roughly 4 million (though ethnic statistics are not allowed in France).

Apart from the occasional isolated incident (which can be quite odious and make the headlines) everybody lives in reasonably good harmony in France.

The two recent terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo and the kosher grocery store were carried out by three jihadists born and raised in France. The two Kouachi brothers who attacked Charlie Hebdo were of Algerian parents and Amedy Coulibaly was of Malian extraction. The Kouachi brothers claimed allegiance to Al-Qaeda and Coulibaly claimed allegiance to Daesh (Islamic State).

The Islamic authorities in France have been active in the media, vigorously condemning these attacks, declaring that the terrorists have nothing to do with Islam and that there should be no amalgam of Muslims and terrorists.

Politicians here are promoting the idea that there should be a net distinction made between the ordinary, mainstream or moderate Muslims who reject extremism and terrorism, and violent, radical, intolerant Muslims.

To make it simple they suggest that the term Muslim should apply only to the former, the latter being called Salafists.

In addition and, perhaps, more importantly, it is suggested that people of Islamic faith in France should become totally integrated as French Muslims and not just Muslims in France as at present. In other words, Islam in France should be made autocephalous.

This would empower the national leaders of the cult to get rid of the Salafists and other radical imams.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 22 January 2015 8:53:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo Paterson,

The fact that many Muslims do not approve of what some Salafists do does not make them any less Muslim.

I have heard many Christians deny that Hitler was a Christian. That did not make him any less a Christian. This is the same sort of thing.

Abraham Lincoln was cross-examining a witness in court before he became president:

"You see that calf grazing? If we call the calf's tail a leg how many legs does the calf have?"

Witness: Five

Abe: No. Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

One can make a distinction between the ordinary law-abiding Muslim and the Salafists without denying that the Salafists are Muslims. One can be a Salafist and still be law-abiding.

Saudi Arabia is Salafist. I doubt that the French government is going either to break off relations with Saudi Arabia or deny that they are Muslims.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 22 January 2015 9:39:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

>>Although you are not a historian you have sound instincts and a reasoning brain. You may be right while they may be wrong.<<

What I mean by saying I am not a specialist is that my knowledge is not enough critical. Some physicists support the superstring theory (I think it is still mainstream), some don’t. I like it (as far as I can understand it), but this opinion of mine is uncritical: I could not defend the theory versus a physicist who has an insider (specialist) understanding of the problems and can argue against it.
Posted by George, Friday, 23 January 2015 8:40:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

Views of history are not equivalent to views on superstring theory. Most physicists accept superstring theory. However, there has been no experimental verification of the theory. There has also been no experiment which denies its applicability. Lee Smolin in "The Trouble with Physics" argues that fundamental physics, the search for the laws of nature is losing its way since physicists are concentrating on string theory which may not have a possibility of being tested. Since he wrote the book the Higgs boson has been found. That is an important advance since speculations as to the existence of a particular particle has been verified. However, superstring theory, unlike views on history, is, as far as I know, unaffected by ideology.

Historians and economists may continue to disagree since there generally are no reliable standards by which we can evaluate either the data on which their theories are based or the results of the applications of those theories. The results when the reliability of social theories are confused with that of the physical sciences can be most horrible. Lysenkoism and Nazi racial theories are examples.

Treitschke and Marx were both historians. I regard your judgment of history as more reliable than theirs.
Posted by david f, Friday, 23 January 2015 9:49:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear david f,

.

« One can make a distinction between the ordinary law-abiding Muslim and the Salafists without denying that the Salafists are Muslims. One can be a Salafist and still be law-abiding. »
.

That is very true, david. There are many ideas that are being bandied around here in France in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Having Islam in France made autocephalous is one of them. How to avoid stigmatising the entire Muslim population and treating them all as jihadists or potential jihadists is another one.

The government is listening closely to what is being said. It has already taken a certain number measures to tighten up security. Today it announced an important package of measures placing greater importance on the teaching of the “values of the Republic” in the national education system: separation of religion and State, moral education, rights and duties of citizenship, etc, …

We will have to wait and see what measures, if any, will be taken by the government in order to encourage the country’s Islamic community to tighten-up its organisation, eliminate any radical elements and exercise more effective control over its operation, perhaps to the point of becoming completely autonomous, free from any outside influence.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 23 January 2015 10:13:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo Paterson,

You wrote: "Having Islam in France made autocephalous is one of them."

There are two things wrong with the above idea.

Autocephaly (from Greek: meaning self-headed) is the status of a hierarchical Christian church whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop (used especially in Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches).

1. France has separation of religion and state. The government has no authority to alter the structure of any religion. It could not decree that French Catholics no longer regard the pope as head of their church.

2. Islam does not have a hierarchical structure in the same sense as Catholics do. Islam is already autocephalous.

There is one thing that could be done that you didn't mention. According to the reports I have read some of the Islamic extremists were converted to that view of Islam in prison as it gave their life meaning it did not previously have. Some of the extremists were not even Muslims when they went to prison. What happened should be examined and counter measures taken. What goes on in the prisons is already part of the national education system in an unhealthy way.
Posted by david f, Friday, 23 January 2015 10:43:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear david f

.

« 1. France has separation of religion and state. The government has no authority to alter the structure of any religion. It could not decree that French Catholics no longer regard the pope as head of their church.

2. Islam does not have a hierarchical structure in the same sense as Catholics do. Islam is already autocephalous. »
.
That is correct, “the government has no authority to alter the structure of any religion”. But religion has no right to promote hatred, violence and terrorism. Religious freedom does not grant supremacy of religious law over secular law. It is the duty of the State to ensure that religion respects the law of the country and does not indulge in the promotion of hatred, violence and terrorism. The State has the right to demand that religion eliminate any radical elements which indulge in such practices (by denouncing them to the legal authorities) and organise itself in order to prevent any future security threats.

This could include restructuring its organisation to tighten-up internal control and rejecting any outside influence from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc., which are known to exert considerable influence on Islam in France by financing the construction of mosques, for example.

Though, as you correctly point out, Islam does not have an hierarchical structure in the same sense as Catholics do, it is autocephalous in theory only, not in practice. It needs to become autocephalous in practice for security to be fully effective.

.

« Some of the extremists were not even Muslims when they went to prison. What happened should be examined and counter measures taken. »

.

The government has been testing isolation of known and potential terrorists (radical Muslims) in a separate wing of one of France’s prisons since November last year and the Prime Minister, Emanuel Valse, announced the extension of this disposition to five other prisons, two days ago. Sixty additional Muslim prison chaplains are to be hired to attend to radical Muslim prisoners in an attempt to deradicalise them before setting them free.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 23 January 2015 9:27:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<But religion has no right to promote hatred, violence and terrorism.>>

Dear Banjo,

Suggest you read John Ferguson's "War and Peace in the World's Religions". Ferguson examined 15 religions. Whether or not they had a right to do so all 15 religions at one time or another promoted hatred, violence and terrorism.

Religion in most countries has an exalted status. You cannot in those countries examine religion with the same sort of critical analysis, questioning or even ridicule that other institutions are subject to. France is one of the few countries where this is not so.

The conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ulster, between Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox in the former Yugoslavia, between Muslims and Jews in Israel/Palestine, between Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka and the Holocaust which was the culmination of years of Christian Jew hatred are some of the many examples of hatred, violence and terrorism promoted by religion. To ask religion not to promote hatred, violence and terrorism is like sending in the clowns and telling them not to be funny.
Posted by david f, Friday, 23 January 2015 10:18:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear david f,

.

« To ask religion not to promote hatred, violence and terrorism is like sending in the clowns and telling them not to be funny »
.

You may be right there, david, but if Islam in France does not toe the (legal) line, the French government means business and will not hesitate to evict them from the country and, if possible, strip them of their French nationality.

France expelled 166 Islamists, including 31 imams, during the 10 year period from 2001 to 2011. Five Islamists were ordered to leave the country in 2012 in the wake of the fatal shootings by Mohamed Merah in Toulouse and Montauban in the south-west of France.

The first imam to be expelled was a Tunisian preacher, Mohammed Hammami, who was accused of calling for "violent jihad," anti-Semitism, and violence against women. Apart from that he had done nothing illegal.

Here is a report of it in English :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/france-to-deport-radical-imams_n_2582003.html

The Constitutional Council of France, the highest constitutional authority in the country, has just validated as being in conformity with the French Constitution, the stripping of the French nationality of a Franco-marocain jihadist, Ahmed Sahnouni, born in Casablanca in 1970 and naturalised as a French citizen in 2003. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a report in English of it but here is a “breaking news” report that has just been published by “Le Figaro” today :

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2015/01/23/97001-20150123FILWWW00107-le-conseil-constitutionnel-valide-la-decheance-de-nationalite-d-un-djihadiste.php?a1=DOL-6243&a3=77-3535392&a4=DOL-6243-77-3535392#xtor=EPR-31-[le-conseil-constitutionnel-valide-la-decheance-de-nationalite-d-un-djihadiste]-20150123-[titre]

Here is another report in English of the government’s deportation policy :

http://www.france24.com/en/20130130-france-deport-radical-imams-islam-valls/

If “sending in the clowns and telling them not to be funny” doesn’t work, I guess the government will simply strip them of their French nationality and toss them out. That shouldn’t be too funny.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 24 January 2015 12:02:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Incitement is illegal under English common law, and government must allow free speech. When speech crosses over into incitement is when such speech causes as Justice Holmes said 'a clear and present danger'. From the recent events in France some of the imams' speech has presented 'a clear and present danger'.

However, the problem is that some individuals hearing such words from an imam would not be incited to do anything wrong while others would be so incited. How to maintain freedom of religion while encouraging the communicants of the religion not to take it seriously remains the problem.

Exodus 22:18 (KJV) states "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." In some African countries this currently is causing murders of 'witches'. Sensible Christians and Jews in most countries are not killing witches because they no longer take that passage seriously.

Sensible Jews, Christians and Muslims are aware that some parts of the Bible and Koran are nasty. Unfortunately all Jews, Christians and Muslims are not sensible.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 24 January 2015 7:05:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

I agree with what you wrote but I still think a specialist is a specialist in any scholarly discipline.

In physics you have observations/experiments and you have theories that explain/interpret them and make predictions. You need a specialist to understand both, i.e. we have experimental physicists and theoretical physicists.

In history you do not have that distinction between “experimental” and “theoretical” specialists. You have facts (which to much extent can be understood by a layman and “ideology” does not play much of a role here) and their interpretation/explanation (no predictions like in physics) and only here “ideology”, preconceived ideas, come into play. I think often to get a good view of a situation, you need a “stereo vision”, i.e. take into account the perspectives of at least two historians whose general worldviews (preconceived ideas) are a priori incompatible.

I believe that a profesional historian knows more facts than I and knows better how to organise them, spot a context than a layman. This is true irrespective of whether or not his a priori “ideological” approach is to my liking. Also, I think a professional is more able to curb his/her preconceived ideas or ideology - be they e.g. of a religious or anti-religion kind - than a non-professional, especially when trying to argue his/her case.

However, you are right that it is much easier to spot that somebody does not know what he/she is talking about when his/her subject is physics (or mathematics) than when it is history or economics.
Posted by George, Saturday, 24 January 2015 8:25:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

I would like to take back what I said about people taking their religion seriously. I am sure you take your religion seriously.

History is based on facts. A historian gathers the facts and creates a narrative from those facts. Unlike the facts a scientist gathers from a reading of a data collection device the facts on which history is based are much more unreliable. From the past there are various documents: clay tablets, eye witness accounts, government archives etc. The historian must make judgments on the validity of the facts. An account from the archives describing actions of the ruler may be influenced by the fact the writer of the narrative would not want to arouse the wrath of the ruler.

Chinese dynasties have employed official historians who write accounts of the dynasty. The accounts consist of biographies of important people, chronologies of happenings during the realm and essays on agriculture, trade etc. There is an account of a ruler who did not like being called a murderer and asked the historian to change the account. The historian refused and was executed. This was repeated with several historians. Finally the ruler let the account stand. In addition when a dynasty is replaced scholars attached to the old dynasty get together with scholars of the new dynasty to write an account of the old dynasty and its overthrow. This tradition has been continued with the present communist government getting together with Kuomintang scholars to write a history of the Kuomintang. The above is a separate thing from the propaganda each Chinese government puts out, and the history is not available. However, it is somewhere. If it is not destroyed it is available for future historians.

Typically a government does not open its archives for a certain number of years after the event. I had the pleasure of visiting the Bureau of Documents in London and examining the nineteenth century accounts of the British consuls in central Asia. The consuls were well educated men who wrote their accounts in beautiful copperplate hand-writing. Generally government archives are reliable

continued
Posted by david f, Saturday, 24 January 2015 11:01:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued

Government archives are usually reliable as most governments want to base their actions on facts.

Another reliable source is the capitalist press. By capitalist press I do not mean the press owned by the capitalists which can be quite unreliable. By capitalist press I mean the press that carries the news on which investors rely.

In Australia there were protests against AIDEX the arms fairs sponsored by the Australian government in which the clients are generally agents of other governments seeking to beef up their military capability which may be used against their own people. During the protests there were ugly incidents of cars being overturned, nails strewn in the roads, etc. In general the protestors were schooled in non-violence, and the ugly incidents were inconsistent with the actions of most protestors. I did a survey of the various reports of the protests in the Australian press. The only newspaper that wrote about the ugly incidents and mentioned that they were probably due to agents provocateur was the Australian Financial Review.

Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable.

Some historians become ideologues. They marshal their facts to present a case for some social action much as a lawyer does to either prosecute or defend. Marx and Treitschke are two examples. When a historian does that they are no longer a historian and are not to be trusted.

Unfortunately the ideologues may produce very interesting and readable history. Just be aware that they have betrayed their trust.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 24 January 2015 11:08:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the Muslim rally in Sydney last night the speakers were denouncing the right to free speech - using the right of free speech. These people are ignorant of Australian values. Any person attending the Rally not an Australian Citizen should be deported; and any person swearing allegiance to Australian values and laws at a Citizenship ceremony, should loose their right as a citizen. They will continue to abuse our values until they install Political members who will install laws banning freedom of expression.
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 24 January 2015 8:12:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus wrote:

"In the Muslim rally in Sydney last night the speakers were denouncing the right to free speech - using the right of free speech. These people are ignorant of Australian values. Any person attending the Rally not an Australian Citizen should be deported; and any person swearing allegiance to Australian values and laws at a Citizenship ceremony, should loose their right as a citizen. They will continue to abuse our values until they install Political members who will install laws banning freedom of expression."

Dear Josephus,

Deporting a person for attending a rally is inconsistent with Australian values as is limiting the right of free speech by shutting up people who are saying what one doesn't want to hear.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 24 January 2015 8:58:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear david f,

.

« ... the problem is that some individuals hearing such words from an imam would not be incited to do anything wrong while others would be so incited.»
.

Philosophers and jurists generally consider that freedom of speech is a law of nature. I, personally, am not aware of any restrictions imposed on the speech or expression of any living creatures other than those which the human species imposes on itself. Even kookaburras can laugh their heads off without being held to account.

Of course, governments could decree that laws of nature such as freedom of speech and expression are not to apply on their territory just as they could decree that gravity is not to apply on their territory. However, doing so would be about as effective as the gesticulations of “El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha” waging battle against windmills.

In the same way that the pollens of springtime can have no effect on some people while being extremely unpleasant, sometimes even lethal to others – so it is with religious intolerance and incitation to jihad. Who could ignore that cultural, psychological, economic and sociological factors are the composite soil in which the incitation to jihadism takes root.

No sooner will the French government have finished weeding out the last radical imam than cyber-Islam will have taken their place. The maggots are in the apples. They need to take care of their apples so that they don’t get infested with maggots.
.

« Exodus 22:18 (KJV) states "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." In some African countries this currently is causing murders of 'witches' … »

That reminds me of an article I read in an Abidjan newspaper in the Ivory Coast some years back. An Ivoirian was tried for the murder of another Ivoirian. The accused explained that he was out hunting with his rifle and shot a monkey up in a tree but when it fell down and hit the ground it turned into a man. The court accepted the explanation and acquitted him.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 25 January 2015 8:47:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

>>I am sure you take your religion seriously.<<

I am not sure what this means. I take the worldwide phenomenon of religion seriously and believe that a sense for it - or an atheist replica of it, say “atheist spirituality” - is built into our brains.

On the other hand you are right that I take my faith - containing assumptions about the nature of reality on which all my world view is built - seriously.

Again, I agree with your expose about history and historians. My distinction between facts and their explanations/interpretations was, of course, an oversimplification, the same as would be a strict distinction between experiment/observation and theory in physics (see critiques of Popper’s “falsifiability” criterion).

A document as such is a fact, although its explanation might include it being a fake. If that is universally agreed upon, then this becomes a new fact, and the document looses its historical significance. (Similarly, the Galileo’s “theory” that Earth orbits the Sun became a fact, although in contemporary theoretical physics this distinction between theory and experimentally established facts is more complicated).
(ctd)
Posted by George, Sunday, 25 January 2015 11:23:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(ctd)

>>Some historians become ideologues. They marshal their facts to present a case for some social action<<

Agreed, although, I would rather say that professional historians should resist as much as possible the temptation to “marshal their facts to master a case” or just to support their a priori (Christian or atheists, or what) word-view convictions. This is much harder to do consequently than it is in science (notably theoretical physics, but also evolutionary biology), namely to keep one’s faith or unfaith out of their science. In philosophy of science there is this notion of “methodological atheism” that professional scientists - including theists - abide by.

Nevertheless, there are scientists who when explaining their science use these explanations to advance their own, a priori atheist, world view (Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Kraus, are good examples). Of course, there are also Christian scientists who cannot resist this temptation to mix with their scientific explanations their own, in this case Christian, interpretation of the scientific findings or theories.

Again, I agree that it is easier for a scientist to keep his world-view preferences out of his professional work than it is for a historian.

May I repeat that we have deviated very far from the original topic of this thread.
Posted by George, Sunday, 25 January 2015 11:32:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

You wrote: “May I repeat that we have deviated very far from the original topic of this thread.”

You may repeat, and we have deviated. The original post asked:

“Why are the cartoonists who provoked and knowingly offended all Muslims more commemorated and celebrated than the four other victims who did not provoke anybody, and were killed only for being Jews. Also Hitler had apparently killed those who dared to publicly ridicule him, but we commemorate more those who were put to death for no other reason than just being Jews.”

“There Once was a World” recounts the 900 year history of the village of Eishyshok where my grandmother came from. She left almost sixty years before the following and died before the event described on page 594:

“On Sunday, September 28, 1941, the tolling of the church bells at the Juryzdyki church called the people to worship, just as it did every Sunday, and the sanctuary was filled to capacity just as it always was. The pews were lined with people in their Sunday best, which in many cases had been the Sabbath best of their dead Jewish neighbours, whose homes they had looted. Ostrauskas [p. 592, After requesting a coat he could wear to shield his uniform, he picked the children up, one by one, and smashed them against some nearby boulders, spattering his hands and the coat he had borrowed with the blood of his small victims.] was there, too, and was observed to make confession. While the freshly covered graves were still moving and spouting blood, the parishioners listened to their priest explain that the Jews had at last been called to account for the killing of Christ. The priest himself had not advocated killing them; nor did he approve of the looting of Jewish homes. In fact, he asked anyone in the congregation wearing stolen Jewish clothes to leave (though no one did). But he seemed to feel that the murder was understandable. Even if it were wrong, a kind of justice had been done.”

Perhaps, many French felt the same way.
Posted by david f, Monday, 26 January 2015 4:15:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

I read your touchy, even horrifying, story an hour or so after having watched on TV a testimony of two ladies (93 and 84 years old) who both had been in Auschwitz and survived (though not their families). The elder lady had lived for 64 years in New York, had no family, so she came back 4 years ago to spend the rest of her life in her native Berlin. When asked, how could she, her answer was that those guilty, even of not having done anything - the German verb is “wegschauen”, something like “looking away”- are either dead or were small children at that time. The other lady grew up in Prague and has lived in Israel since 1949.

The occasion for the interviews was the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. [The controversy around the celebrations are sad indeed: Putin will not attend, Poroshenko (the Ukrainian president) will. Now thety say it was Ukraine that liberated Auschwitz (http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/01/24/2718). So today Russia is blamed for all the bad things the USSR did, Ukraine praised for all the good things. A couple of weeks ago many eybrows were raised when the Ukrainian PM Yatsenyuk even claimed that in WWII the Soviet Union invaded both Ukraine and Germany.]
Posted by George, Monday, 26 January 2015 9:27:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

I was in Lubeck around 1985. In a restaurant I ordered in my Yiddish-accented German. The big, blond bartender came out from behind the bar and said, "Sind sie Jude?" Clutching my steak knife nervously, ready to do battle, I answered 'Ja'. He stuck out a massive hand and said, "Shalom". He had escaped to Israel but missed his home. So he went back to Lubeck after the war.

In Lubeck there are the connected twin towers that you may see pictured on marzipan boxes. At the bottom of one of the towers there is a torture museum – rack, thumb screws, iron maiden, etc. It was Christmas season, and, as I looked at these instruments, the strains of 'Stille Nacht, Heilige Nacht' came through the window. With my prejudices the combination of sight and sound seemed an expression of German culture.

I remember at the beginning of WW2 how Finland became an enemy. Before the war Finland used to be praised in the US press as the only nation that repaid its debts to the US. Then came WW2. Finland went to war, and, together with Germany, invaded Russia. All of a sudden, Finland became a Nazi toady, an evil country. To the Finns I assume it was merely a continuation of the previous war with the Soviets when they had been invaded by the Soviet. Our newspapers had made much of the valiant resistance of the Finns to the evil communists in the first war. However, the evil communists became co-belligerents, and the valiant Finns became the enemy.

Myth may disregard fact. There is a current myth repeated many times that democracies do not go to war with each other. Before, during and after WW2 Finland was and is a genuine democracy. They were on the other side in WW2 from the US, Britain and France. There are other cases of democracies being at odds or at war with each other, but the myth persists.

There are many Yatsenyuks.
Posted by david f, Monday, 26 January 2015 10:47:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

A sub-title on the “public sector guidance sheet” on the topic of “Right to freedom of opinion and expression” that figures on the Attorney-General’s Department section of the Australian Government’s web site, is :

“Which domestic laws relate to freedom of opinion and expression?”

The reply follows :

“There is no Commonwealth legislation enshrining a general right to freedom of expression.” :

http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Righttofreedomofopinionandexpression.aspx#7which

Australia is the only Western democracy in the world with neither a constitutional nor a federal legislative bill of rights despite strong public support for a bill similar to that of Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, the only state and territory to have a bill of rights.

Also, Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. That does not preclude the states of Australia from making such laws.

Section 116 does not apply to the states. Each state has its own constitution, and only Tasmania's has a provision similar to Section 116. Commentators attribute the erroneous location of Section 116 to a drafting oversight caused by the weariness of the committee charged with finalising the draft Constitution. The error has never been corrected.

To top it all off, we have a non-resident, foreign national as our head of state, the Queen of England, who is concomitantly the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

I am a regular reader of the Queensland parliamentary committee reports and I see that all committee meetings commence with prayers and reference to “God”.

And, of course, After graduating from university, our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott trained as a Roman Catholic seminarian to become a Catholic priest. However, following a change of diocesan boundaries, his new Bishop thought he was too radical so Abbott took up politics instead.

As for historical revisionism, I guess we all indulge in that to a certain extent and present particular aspects of the past in a more favourable light than the reality we know.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 27 January 2015 1:21:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

In the symposium on “Free Speech” organised last year by the Australian Human Rights Commission, the president of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), Professor Rosalind Croucher, quoted Lord (Baron) Hoffmann as having said :

« Freedom means the right to publish things which government and judges, however well motivated, think should not be published. It means the right to say things which ‘right-thinking people’ regard as dangerous or irresponsible. »

Here is the link to the symposium papers :

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/free-speech-report2014.pdf

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 27 January 2015 7:21:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy