France and the cartoons of Mohammed; what's your take?

[Kron]

@Velocity

what are people like Muslims supposed to do when or if someone does something blatantly offensive and has no intention of stopping?

I’m going with the controversial stance of “don’t murder people”.

[Delayed_Reflex]

@RitterSport

They should do what Christians did with Piss Christ. Complain, stamp their feet, say that it’s offensive and ask people to stop. Violence is completely inappropriate.

So are you supportive of things like #BoycottFrance and peaceful anti-French rallies occurring around the globe? Do you think the statements from various Muslim leaders around the world criticizing Macron and the French are justified?

I don’t think you’ll find a single person on this board who supports using violence in response to the publishing of depictions of Mohammed, but it is pretty apparent that a great number of Muslims are very offended by people illustrating him. Is their offense worthless from your point of view? If a bunch of white people were killed in the US because they used the n-word, would you support people using the n-word in support of free speech?

[Delayed_Reflex]

@thorny_locust

Using the cartoons, after appropriate warning, in a class about journalism or religion or freedom of speech, isn’t trolling. Using them in a genuine defense of freedom of speech isn’t trolling either. Using such cartoons primarily to piss off Muslims in general is trolling, and is being a jerk. People should not be murdered for being jerks, but snarling at them is OK, and treating them as jerks whose opinions should be discredited is fine – in fact I’d recommend it.

Deciding whether a particular person or publication is genuinely defending freedom of speech against murderers, or just likes to piss off Muslims because they’re bigoted, is in some cases going to be difficult.

That’s the thing - are we not being a bit too anglo-centric by saying that it is OK to use cartoons of Mohammed in a class about journalism, or religion, or freedom of speech? From the backlash that is being received around the world, it seems like publishing a depiction of Mohammed is more like using the n-word - ie. not acceptable to be used even in those circumstances, for the most part. Unless, of course, you are of the persuasion that people should be able to use the n-word in those contexts as well.

[Kron]

People are already free to use “the n-word” in the US. There is no law against it.

Your entire post is “just asking questions”, most of which have been answered in the text of the post you quoted.

[Delayed_Reflex]

The point is, are you an asshole for using the n-word? Most people would say yes, even if you are saying it “to support free speech” or “in historical context” or “for educational purposes”. I think the same thing applies to publishing depictions of Mohammed - sure, you should be legally allowed to do it, but it’s an asshole move.

[Kron]

Well, just saying it “to support free speech” would probably get you labeled an asshole (or bigot, in the “they can say it, why can’t I?” sense). But I’ve never really noticed a ton of serious pushback in an historical or educational context.

However, yes, just because you have the right to say whatever you want doesn’t mean your audiences don’t have the same right, and are free to speak their minds and label you as they see fit. And if the fundamentalist Muslims put out a statement saying “The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo are disrespectful assholes!”, they probably would have gotten broad support from plenty of non-Muslims who don’t like assholes, and maybe gotten a change, peacefully.

But no, they went the “murder” route.

[MEBuckner]

@Delayed_Reflex

The point is, are you an asshole for using the n-word? Most people would say yes, even if you are saying it “to support free speech” or “in historical context” or “for educational purposes”. I think the same thing applies to publishing depictions of Mohammed - sure, you should be legally allowed to do it, but it’s an asshole move.

I don’t think it would make someone an asshole to teach Huckleberry Finn in a course on literature, or to discuss the works of Joseph Conrad.

[octopus]

Deal with it like rational and mature adults. We used to expect better from kindergarteners then we currently do with grown men and women. In large part because some feel that weaponized outrage is a useful political tool.

[QuickSilver]

@Velocity

Take blasphemy laws, for instance. (The map on that Wikipedia page indicates nearly all Middle Eastern nations authorize imprisonment or death for blasphemy.) Pakistan recently got coverage for this. The penalty for anti-Islamic blasphemy isn’t going to be a polite “please cease and desist.”

Sure, but they’re not in Kansas anymore. So they need to follow a different set of rules and behavior. In time, most even grow to like them. Those who can’t make the adjustment should just click their heels and fuck off back home.

[SCAdian]

My wife commented this morning that Moslems these days seem to be putting much more emphasis on Mohammed than on Allah…

[QuickSilver]

Interesting. Because Christians keep threatening to put Christ back into Christmas and ruin it for everyone.

[eenerms]

Were the murders in Nice Have anything to do with these cartoons ? I haven’t heard. Nice is aways from Paris.

[DavidNRockies]

At the grocery store, last week, a lady who was paying no attention ran over my foot with her shopping cart. Because I was wearing flip-flops it hurt like heck.

Now tell me: should I have followed her out to the parking lot and beaten her brains in with a baseball bat ?

There’s a real ‘proportionality’ question here. My right to be offended by your cartoon doesn’t include me beheading you.

Not in any sane world, at least.

[ISiddiqui]

@Delayed_Reflex

@RitterSport

They should do what Christians did with Piss Christ. Complain, stamp their feet, say that it’s offensive and ask people to stop. Violence is completely inappropriate.

So are you supportive of things like #BoycottFrance and peaceful anti-French rallies occurring around the globe? Do you think the statements from various Muslim leaders around the world criticizing Macron and the French are justified?

I don’t think you’ll find a single person on this board who supports using violence in response to the publishing of depictions of Mohammed, but it is pretty apparent that a great number of Muslims are very offended by people illustrating him. Is their offense worthless from your point of view? If a bunch of white people were killed in the US because they used the n-word, would you support people using the n-word in support of free speech?

I think this is exactly the sort of discussion that the OP is asking about. A lot of people have gone through some strange notions that anyone in this thread is saying, oh yeah, beheading people for this is ok. So if everyone can just accept that NO ONE IN THIS THREAD thinks beheading or killing people in response to offense is ok, then perhaps we can get to this more interesting question.

So in some countries in continental Europe, freedom of speech and expression are far more curtailed than they are in the US, right? In France, for instance students and teachers cannot wear hijabs or crosses to public schools.

So the issue IMO is whether its appropriate to teach or show such works in classes orientated to young teens and if it’s appropriate for a society to rally against jerkishness by showing that jerkishness. Someone mentioned Huckleberry Finn, but what if in the US a Middle School teacher said they were going to talk about free speech and film by showing Song of the South or Birth of a Nation. I think there would be a lot of pushback. I sometimes think when hearing about French/Muslim relations that the French don’t quite get that they are being jerks about some of this stuff - like one can defend Charlie Hebdo without showing the cartoons on building walls.

[RitterSport]

@Delayed_Reflex

So are you supportive of things like #BoycottFrance and peaceful anti-French rallies occurring around the globe? Do you think the statements from various Muslim leaders around the world criticizing Macron and the French are justified?

I think peaceful protests against France are just fine. If people want to boycott France, I’m fine with that, too. Am I supportive of it? Only in the sense that I’m supportive of their right to speech and peaceable assembly. I won’t boycott France or march in support of banning depictions of Mohammed.

Regarding using the n-word, there’s no law against it. If someone decides to use it and gets fired, that’s the risk they take for being an asshole. If someone draws a cartoon of Mohammed while working for an Arab-language newspaper and gets fired, that’s fine with me, too.

It seems like you think you have a gotcha, but I don’t see it.

[RitterSport]

@ISiddiqui

…said they were going to talk about free speech and film by showing Song of the South or Birth of a Nation…

Different things are offensive in different nations. The French, by and large, don’t think that showing depictions of Muhammed is offensive. The US, by and large, do think that showing depictions of white supremacy or happy slavery is offensive, so a teacher who showed that would likely get fired.

[ISiddiqui]

Yes, that’s the point. There is a sizable Muslim minority in France (about 9% of the population) who find these cartoons incredibly offensive. That goes for the ones who are against violence as well. Of course not that long ago, a teacher showing those films to teenagers wouldn’t have anything done against him (depending on where he lived).

So shouldn’t French people, while condemning violence, consider that a sizable portion of the population considered the depictions offensive and racist (iirc, Mohammed was depicted by turbans, etc)

[bump]

@Delayed_Reflex

That’s the thing - are we not being a bit too anglo-centric by saying that it is OK to use cartoons of Mohammed in a class about journalism, or religion, or freedom of speech? From the backlash that is being received around the world, it seems like publishing a depiction of Mohammed is more like using the n-word - ie. not acceptable to be used even in those circumstances, for the most part. Unless, of course, you are of the persuasion that people should be able to use the n-word in those contexts as well.

Even if it is like the n-word, it’s explicitly legal to do both things, in both France and the US. Maybe it’s in poor taste and impolite, but that’s about it.

The French are absolutely right to give the Islamic world the finger about this. It’s NOT about Islam, it’s about free speech and frankly, about backward-ass attitudes vs. modern ones. And it’s awfully presumptuous for the Muslim segment of the world to expect a modern secular nation to change their laws based on what THEIR religion dictates. That’s just attempts to intimidate if you ask me.

The right response for angry French Muslims is to attempt to change the laws through the existing peaceful mechanisms- protests to change popular opinion, lobbying legislators, running for office themselves, etc… But getting riled up and beheading people is NEVER acceptable in a modern civilized society. And ultimately, if they fail to change the laws, they have a choice to make- keep trying, STFU, or go elsewhere.

[RitterSport]

@ISiddiqui

So shouldn’t French people, while condemning violence, consider that a sizable portion of the population considered the depictions offensive and racist (iirc, Mohammed was depicted by turbans, etc)

And then, what? Make such depictions illegal? Charlie Hebdo is offensive by design – it’s their stock in trade, right?

Is Piss Christ OK? How about South Park’s depiction of the Pope or Catholics in general? Or, their depictions of Mormons or Scientologists?

I grant that these depictions of Mohammed are offensive to Muslims. I don’t understand the next step here.

[ISiddiqui]

I do think this Washington Post op-ed kind of hits things on the head here:

Perspective | Instead of fighting systemic racism, France wants to ‘reform...

A few paragraphs:

The objective, backed by popular sentiment, appears sensible: to protect the French from further attacks. “What we need to fight is Islamist separatism,” Macron said. But the method seems designed to solve a different problem than terrorist violence. Instead of addressing the alienation of French Muslims, especially in France’s exurban ghettos, or banlieues — which experts broadly agree is the root cause that leaves some susceptible to radicalization and violence — the government aims to influence the practice of a 1,400-year-old faith, one with almost 2 billion peaceful followers around the world, including tens of millions in the West. It’s an odd answer to the problem (although one that echoes the way Napoleon regulated the practice of Judaism). But it’s perhaps the only one France can contemplate in a universe where it will not commit to measuring the systemic discrimination that fuels so much of the “separatism” it seeks to combat.

When minorities, and especially Muslims, voice opinions critical of establishment dogma, the French press often accuses them of terrorist complicity. In a television debate Wednesday, for instance, the author Pascal Bruckner said the well-known journalist Rokhaya Diallo — whom he identified as a “Muslim and black woman” — abetted the 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo because she had once signed an open letter against the paper.

The raw anger that Paty’s killing elicited allows little room for reflection. Most French politicians have doubled down on a hard-line interpretation of France’s secularism. Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin went on national television and identified ethnic food in supermarkets as “communitarian cuisine” that fosters the sort of separatist sentiments that led to the attack. Days after Paty’s killing, two female attackers stabbed two Muslim women in headscarves and called them “dirty Arabs” as they walked near the Eiffel Tower. “There is a hysterical climate,” says Rachid Benzine, a French political scientist.

The irony, of course, is that Paty, himself, may not have wanted his name to be used in the way it is currently being used by Macron to perpetuate ways to make Muslims in France feel non-French, which contributes to radicalization.