The Fallen Blogger and the Spectre of Secularism

The BBQ Pit
461

…And would he also put sugar on his porridge, by any chance? :dubious:

For somebody who purports to have such a high regard for free speech, you’re being awfully authoritarian about insisting that other people shouldn’t disagree with you.

[QUOTE=Stringbean]

…because the attack was an attack on freedom of expression and the award represents the very principle of freedom of expression.

[/quote]

And the point being made by Teju Cole, and other PEN authors who disagreed with the Charlie Hebdo award, is that the magazine Charlie Hebdo is not what they consider the best available candidate for that award. They thought that other writers who were attacked for freedom of expression, such as Badawi and Roy who were both viciously persecuted by repressive Islamist-extremists, would be better candidates.

[QUOTE=Stringbean]

In other words, a [free-speech] fundamentalist has an absolute allegiance to freedom of expression and does not get to pick and choose to only like the non-offensive stuff.

[/quote]

:confused: That makes no sense whatsoever. A “free-speech fundamentalist” or anybody else absolutely DOES “get to pick and choose to only like” whatever they want. Defense of free expression isn’t about “liking”.

A free-speech fundamentalist is not required to like all freely expressed statements equally, but merely to support their equal right to be freely expressed. And Teju Cole, AFAICT, has never suggested that anti-Muslim bigotry doesn’t have an equal right to be freely expressed: he merely uses his own right of free expression to criticize what he doesn’t like about it.

462

Publicly denouncing your role in giving an award commemorating their free expression is about as clear a statement of “suggesting that [what people who refuse to unequivocally condemn the killings have falsely painted as] anti-Muslim bigotry doesn’t have an equal right to be freely expressed” as can be.

463
464

At the risk of feeding the troll, I’m perfectly happy to name one thing about Islam that I dislike. Namely, I personally dislike Islam’s prohibition on consuming pork products, as I happen to think pork products are yummy.

Now, if you ask me to name something about specific radical sects and/or interpretations and/or political manifestations of Islam that I dislike, well, I’ve got a much longer list than that.

But, of course, that’s not the sort of thing you want to hear. As I’ve often said, you Islamophobic bigots aren’t actually interested in anybody condemning things about specific radical sects and/or interpretations and/or political manifestations of Islam that specifically deserve condemnation, unless the condemnation is indiscriminately applied to Islam as a whole.

As a matter of fact, you guys and the radical-extremist Islamist fundamentalists are ideological best buddies when it comes to insisting that all the repressive and evil aspects of radical-extremist Islamist fundamentalism have to be viewed as essential and intrinsic to Islam per se. Honestly, Haberdash, if some radical-extremist mullah gets laryngitis and can’t deliver his next speech about how all true Muslims need to destroy the infidel and how Islamic nations must never tolerate blasphemy or homosexuality or all the other degeneracy of the West blah blah blah, you could step right in and give his speech for him without even looking at his notes. :rolleyes:

465

I don’t think the radical extremists waste time exhorting against blasphemy or homosexuality, since those things are already against the law in every Muslim country and not tolerated in any Muslim community in a non-Muslim country. You know, by magic, since only “radical extremists” have a problem with them.

466

No it’s not, unless you’re an idiot. Let me restate the fundamental issue for you, slowly and clearly:

Supporting somebody’s right of free expression doesn’t automatically mean that you have to give them an award for what they’re expressing.

Similarly, if I happen not to think that Rosamund Pike should get an Oscar for Best Actress, that doesn’t in any way imply that I don’t support her right to be an actress.

Even if Rosamund Pike were to heaven-forbid get shot by some violent fanatic who doesn’t approve of her actressing, that still wouldn’t obligate me to support choosing her for Best Actress.

Now, nobody is denying that Rosamund Pike is qualified to be nominated for a Best Actress Oscar, just as nobody is denying that Charlie Hebdo’s staff are qualified to be considered for the PEN Freedom of Expression Courage award.

But holding the opinion that there are other nominees who would be a better choice for Best Actress doesn’t make me in any way anti-actress. Just as holding the opinion that there are other candidates who would be a better choice for the Freedom of Expression Courage award doesn’t make Teju Cole in any way anti-free-expression.

467

dp

468

A free-speech fundamentalist sees the world take notice after a vicious attack on the very principle of freedom of expression and…bows out at the last moment???

Balderdash.

I see how the attack on Charlie Hebdo has stealthily transformed from “horrendous attack on free speech” to “man that Charlie fella sure said some mean things…”

The arc of political correctness can only swing so wide in the hearts of the liberal intelligentsia.

469

If you are a member of an organization that awards the “Freedom of Expression Courage Award” then yes, actually it does mean that.

I and Salman Rushdie disagree with Teju Cole and the other Sharia-compliant cowards.

470

The profundity of your idiocy is matched only by the fathomless depths of your ignorance. Of course the radical extremist Islamists exhort against blasphemy and homosexuality. See, e.g., the remarks of radical British cleric Anjem Choudary concerning blasphemy (he’s agin it), or radical Canadian cleric Hamid Abdur-Razak on homosexuality (he’s agin it too). (I select English-speaking radicals because I doubt you would be able to find or understand similar diatribes in other languages, but rest assured they’re out there, and if you want cites I can find you plenty.)

Don’t you ever feel even a little bit silly when you say so many things that are not only flat-out wrong but could have been easily corrected with a simple internet search? I guess to you, maintaining your bigotry in its pristine ignorance is worth the price you pay for it by looking like a fool.

For instance, homosexual activity in private between consenting adults is not in fact a crime in Turkey, which I think qualifies as a Muslim country by anybody’s standards. (That’s not to say there’s no prejudice or discrimination against homosexuals in Turkey, because there is, but then there’s prejudice and discrimination against homosexuals in plenty of Western countries too; and your claim here was specifically about the legal status of homosexual acts.) Likewise, Niger, Mali, Djibouti, Chad, and several other Muslim-majority countries don’t legally forbid same-sex sexual activity.

Moreover, Mali, Libya, Senegal and several other Muslim-majority countries don’t legally prohibit blasphemy. (And you might not want to push too hard on that issue, as you’ll find a surprising number of non-Muslim countries still have anti-blasphemy laws on the books, including Israel, Germany, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, and Poland, in some of which places such laws are occasionally still enforced.)

How could you imagine that such a sweeping generalization would have even the remotest chance of being true? Of course there are Muslim communities in non-Muslim-majority countries that welcome gay and/or ideologically unorthodox Muslims. Check out the US organization Muslims for Progressive Values, for starters.

471

Do you also believe that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is obligated to award a “Best Actress” Oscar to everyone who happens to be an actress?

I think perhaps you just don’t understand how awards work.

Oh, I see: it’s the “world taking notice” aspect that you think Cole ought to be genuflecting in front of.

You don’t actually happen to give a shit about the other courageous victims of vicious attacks (many by Islamist tyrants and extremists) on the very principle of freedom of expression that Cole proposes honoring. Or the ones that have been honored by PEN in previous years. You’re just outraged that Cole isn’t supporting an award to the victims of the one vicious attack on freedom of expression since the Rushdie fatwa that has actually hit the big time as a world news item.

Like I said, for someone who purports to be so fond of free speech, you’re pretty authoritarian about refusing to accept that somebody could legitimately have an opinion different from yours.

But I suppose the image of a sniveling intellectual groveling in fear before the terrors of the Caliphate is more stimulating to your outrage-boner than the notion of a thoughtful and insightful writer who just happens to have a different opinion than you do about which one of many courageous proponents of free expression in the face of violence and abuse is most deserving of an award.

Delusional piffle. There’s never been any “transformation” or anything “stealthy” about the fact that lots of liberals, myself included, have always openly maintained both that Charlie Hebdo says a lot of mean things and that the murder of its staffers was an atrocious and heinous crime as well as a horrendous attack on free speech.

You see, us real free-speech proponents are capable of defending the right of free expression even of those we don’t happen to like very much.

472

I once supported the KKK’s right to free speech.

Now I have to keep going to all these fucking cross burnings.

473

If there was an award for “Actress Who Died For Speech,” if the Academy had already decided to award it to a particular actress, and a member of the Academy then threw a public tantrum calling attention to his own boycott of the ceremony because, according to a theory he had just developed after the actress’s murder based on repeated assertion of untruths, the actress was a racist, then there would be certain obligations violated and certain people exposing themselves as morons. That’s the appropriate analogy here to the Sharia-compliant coward Teju Cole.

474

What “obligations” do you think would be violated?

Even assuming the rest of your seriously distorted analogy was objective and accurate (which it isn’t: “tantrum” and “theory he had just developed” and “untruths” are your own skewed spin on the events), you still haven’t given a single rational reason why Cole or the other writers who withdrew from the gala would be in any way “obligated” not to do what they did.

Free speech is free speech for everybody, babycakes. There’s no “obligation” for all members of PEN to agree with all of PEN’s decisions, or to keep their disagreement secret.

And I still maintain that Teju Cole, by publicly expressing his support for people like Badawi and Roy who have been viciously silenced for bravely standing up to Islamist-extremist tyranny, has done something way more courageous and beneficial to freedom of expression than anything your pitiful little anti-Muslim swaggering and chest-thumping behind a messageboard alias has ever accomplished.

475

What’s the point? You pulled this schtick with Obama and after being given a laundry list of things the left criticize Obama about you’re still spouting the “progressives think Obama is perfect” lie. You’ll just ignore responses again since you’ve clearly no intention of discussing this in good faith.

But nonetheless: I have no problem condemning those who use Islam to oppress, persecute and kill women, homosexuals and non-believers. I condemn Muslims who demand adherence to their dogma and attempt to force schools to teach only their worldview. And I emphatically condemn those Muslims who react to any perceived slights with extreme hatred and violence.

Of course, I have the same condemnations for those Christians, or indeed followers of any other religion, who behave in the same way. How about you?

476

I’ll make you a deal, Haberdash: I’ll start posting criticisms of things I dislike about Islam, if for every thing I post you reply with a criticism of something you dislike about Charlie Hebdo’s work.

477

What’s particularly disgusting about this “outrage” over the dissenting PEN writers is that for the most part, the way the whole Charlie Hebdo situation has been handled is a living monument to the value and robustness of free expression:

  1. A bunch of arguably somewhat juvenile but honest and law-abiding satirists routinely publish a bunch of stuff that’s arguably rather assholish but perfectly legal.

  2. A couple of vicious and tyrannical Islamist-extremist thugs brutally murder some of said satirists as “punishment” for their actions (and brutally murder some other people too).

  3. Most of the world, including large chunks of the Muslim world, unites in unhesitatingly condemning and rejecting these atrocious crimes. That includes all known spokespersons and adherents of any political viewpoint everywhere in the western world, AFAICT: I have seen absolutely zero evidence that anyone, liberal or conservative or anything else, in the western political sphere has gone on record opining that they thought the murders were justifiable or excusable.

  4. Some people combine their condemnation of the murders with endorsement of Charlie Hebdo’s statements, as a solidarity gesture and #JeSuisCharlie etc. Others condemn the murders but still think that many of Charlie Hebdo’s statements are kind of assholish, hence #JeSuisPasCharlie and so forth. Proponents of those different views argue with each other about them in private and in print, and nobody murders anybody over them.

  5. The PEN organization decides to bestow its Freedom of Expression award on Charlie Hebdo. Some of its members such as Cole and Ondaatje disagree with that choice and withdraw from the awards ceremony. Salman Rushdie opines that the dissenting writers are “horribly wrong”, while PEN says “we never shy away from controversy nor demand uniformity of opinion across our ranks. We will be sorry not to see those who have opted out of the gala, but we respect them for their convictions.” Proponents of those different views argue with each other about them in private and in print, and nobody murders anybody over them.

Freedom of expression: you’re doing it right.

And then chuckleheads like Stringbean and Haberdash harrumph that “free speech” requires everybody of good faith to agree with them on this issue, and that disagreeing with them automatically makes someone a “moron” and a “Sharia-compliant coward” and a violator of some unspecified “obligations”, and similar dissent-stifling bullshit.

Freedom of expression: you’re doing it wrong.

478

This would be a lot better of a zinger if Cole had, in fact, publicly expressed his support of Badawi or Roy, instead of mentioning them 0 times despite having regular columns in a variety of media outlets. But hey, let’s not let reality include on an Islam lovefest – we have people who believe in magic flying horses to defend.

479

Which other murder victims do you go out of your way to note were assholes, other than the ones murdered by Muslims? Have you reminded any rape victims that their dresses were too short, or they just plain deserved it for being bitches, lately?

Then you haven’t been paying attention, because there were plenty of Muslims and progressives who said this.

It was a lot more than just the block that argued that murders over “Islamophobia” are justifiable. There were also many media outlets, including the NY Times and many other first-tier American reporters, who refused to publish the cartoons which were obviously the subject of news, because they were cowed by the murders into adopting a no-Muhammad policy. Complying with the dictates of Islam because Muslims killed someone is called terrorism winning, and it’s shameful.

What you consistently fail to comprehend is that PEN is not an organization dedicated to awarding “neutral depictions of Islam” or “good taste” or “things Teju Cole’s sense of Sharia agrees with.” The award was for a martyr of free expression. The fact that Cole has the right to quit the group in a huff over it, which no one has disputed, does not change the fact that his doing so is a clear statement that he doesn’t believe people who violate his sense of Sharia are entitled to free expression.

480

Muslim members of Congress, who never ever want to censor anyone, demand that U.S. immigration policy be changed to deny visas to anyone “Islamophobic”: