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)

.

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.

.

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.

Dear David F.,

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.convictcreations.com/research/identity.htm

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.

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