Still breaking news, but it appears that several gunmen have broken into a French satirical/cartoon magazine and killed at least 12, including what was basically the execution of a French police officer who was down with hands raised and caught on video by onlookers. It’s pretty horrific, and luckily they aren’t showing the video of the execution on the CNN site, but it looks pretty ugly.
From what seems to be the consensus so far, it’s either ISIL/ISIS and/or AQ who is behind this because, well, the magazine has published some cartoons in the past poking fun of Islam and the prophet Mohammad, may peace be upon him and his followers.
For debate, I guess, what should France do about this wrt their foreign and domestic policy as well as their freedom of speech stance wrt cartoons such as seemingly perpetrated this. Should they just suck this up and go on as before, taking this as simply one of those things and maintaining their stance both foreign and domestic and especially wrt their stance on freedom of speech, or should they change something to try and prevent or mitigate such attacks in the future?
This tactic of attacking either using cyber, threats or out and out violence because you don’t agree with the message or you find the movie, cartoon or article written offensive seems to be gaining steam lately, so I guess the broader question is what should be done about this in the future? Should we cave in to these threats and modify our speech or tell these humorless assholes to stick their unbending and rigid philosophies and politics where the monkey put the peanut? Or something in-between?
The latter. I know it seems easy for me to say that when I’m not being shot at, but if you think that my answer would change if I were, you’d be surprised. Our societies have benefited far too much from our open speech to end the practice because terrorists don’t like it.
To quote Duane Hanson, who had cancer several times from the materials he worked with: If you’re not willing to die for your art, get out now.
PRI’s radio show The World had an interesting interview today with Lebanese satirist Karl Sharro (@KarlreMarks on twitter), who suggested there is a trend in Western politics to try shut down that which offends one and that the attacks today can be compared to that trend. The interview hasn’t been posted yet (or I’m just not able to find it) but the web site is http://www.pri.org/. I was reminded of the North Korean government’s reaction to The Interview, also.
The murder of Theo Van Gogh in 2004 marked something of a turning point in European attitudes. It forced many Europeans, including many liberals, to realize there was a segment of the Islamic population hostile to free speech and other liberal values. After that it became possible, even among liberals, to raise questions about whether the Islamic immigrant community was integrating into European society, and what policies should be adopted to deal with such questions. But the change only went so far. In most European countries, mainstream political parties are unwilling to consider major changes such as radical cuts in immigration quotas.
I would not be surprised if today’s events spark a similar change, making it more acceptable for European liberals to talk about the threat from Islamic extremism and to propose solutions. For sure, this wasn’t the deadliest Islamic terror attack in history. Not even close. But the combination of clear targeting of free speech, graphic bloodshed, and the existence of videos showing it all, may make the effects of this attack run deeper than others.
Which is how it should be since there is no evidence that the overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants are failing to integrate.
Efforts to intercept or, later, catch and prosecute terrorists should be stepped up. Treating this as a situation that calls for addressing entire populations of people based on xenophobia and deliberately denying their integration or assimilation into the larger society is both morally wrong and based on erroneous, counter-factual beliefs.
Nor should they be. The two main suspects are French-born brothers of Algerian descent whose parents were also born in France. Immigration quotas would have had no effect.
If we are going to go to war over cartoons, I would hope it would be over ones that are far more interesting, imaginative and humorous than the crappy examples I’ve seen so far.
An NPR story suggested that some Muslims feel excluded or segregated, and that they believe they are not allowed full opportunities to integrate. So, if that’s correct, there are a lot of people who want to integrate more into the mainstream of French society, but perceive obstacles.
I posted in the Pit thread and edit and expand it a bit for this one:
There is assimilation and then there is assimilation. I prefer the term “integration” or “incorporation” in the sense that the immigrant adapts to the new environment and becomes able to contribute to it on equal footing, he joins the new community but that does not mean necessarily being absorbed and rendered indistinct, *nor either *just keeping his head down and passing unnoticed. The new arrival and the first-generation family should not be expected to flat out annull up their identity but rather to adapt to the new home and, yes, follow the new home’s rules – but those rules should also provide a path for acceptance and welcome and hope. There has got to be something in it for you. If no matter what your degree of adaptation to the adopted society you are and always will be treated as an obvious “other” and never be a “real” Frenchman/Briton/German/etc ; but at the same time you feel you have been deprived of fully developing your distinct identity either so fresh arrivals or real old timers may call you a sellout or a phony; then you can end up susceptible to the siren song of those who offer an ideology of hate disguised as “pride” or “faith”, and a chance to at least die for “something greater than yourself.”
Well, different people have different ideas of what it means to integrate, but anyone who’s followed news from France in recent years knows that there are issues which aren’t so easy to dismiss. The great majority of Muslim immigrants live in segregated neighborhoods. There have been riots by immigrants in many cities. Clashes between immigrants and police are common. There’s apparently a tradition of immigrants setting cars on fire on New Year’s Eve; this year they burned over a thousand. Cases of violence and vandalism by Muslims against Jews have grown disturbingly common. Some Jews have fled France because they fear for their safety.
It’s not just France either. The city of Rotterham in Britain has a large ghetto of Pakistani immigrants and it was revealed last year that rape, child molesting, and human trafficking were running rampant there. Groups of Pakistani thugs had brought the misogynistic aspects of their culture with them; thousands of victims suffered as a result.
Those who follow the news also know that political upheavals are underway in France, Britain, and other European countries. Because the mainstream political parties refuse to address and acknowledge these issues, new parties are arising to take their place. As the body count climbs higher, remaining in denial will become a less and less plausible alternative.
Good post. Meaningful integration, with diversity still cherished; I like this. There is responsibility on all sides, but those who are most established in the society have to provide the context for it to work.
If your post was intended as humor I suggest a month’s intensive reading of Leacock, Perelman and Jerome K. Jerome which might convey to you what funny means.