islamist extremists strike in france

[KareninsGirl]

My thoughts are with the victims of the latest barbaric act by Islamic extremists.

The world needs to wake up and defend itself.

RIP those who died and prayers for those critically injured.

at French magazine office www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30710883

Claig, I don't think you told me if you worship the god of the OT or if you believe he was a false god.

"I think the problem is that if you had young white men running around Europe beheading and shooting Muslims this frequently the same people who seem so keen to minimize these attacks would be in absolute paroxysms of outrage.

There would of course be the obligatory references to Nazism and they would be demanding that we as a society took the blame collectively and looked at where we went wrong.

But when it's Islamic terrorists it's almost as if we are expected to believe that they were produced in a complete vacuum. That there was no influence from mosque's, family, friends, madrassas, schools. Islam exists as a completely benign entity which has no influence on these murderers who suddenly spring from it. "

This.

"Le Pen believes in defending French values."

This is the cover Charlie Hebdo published to illustrate how they perceive what Marine Le Pen represents.
There are countless other issues at stake here, but I truly think that defending the FN's simplistic, narrow-minded views is an insult to the values and the memory of the cartoonists who were killed yesterday.

I haven't read the whole thread (but will), but just wanted to add my thoughts to the arguments expressed here. I have issues with all religions (committed atheist) but it seems that far from blaming disenfranchised young men, unfavourable social conditions, lack of education, deprivation, etc.. for the regular occurrence of these atrocities, is it not more fair and honest to assert that the starting point for Islam are the concepts of inequality and prejudice, which are enshrined in their law, the Koran, etc.? The infidel - anyone who is not of the same faith must be killed or converted (and if the latter, then they have secondary rights). Another starting point is that the word of a woman is worth half of that of a man. This is not just a personal thought or belief (and everybody has a right to those), which, of course, plenty of individuals in Western democracies share as well, but enshrined in law (something which is not the case in democracies) and ultimately, in action. At every atrocity, I wonder why ordinary Muslims never seem to organise themselves to protest against them - is it because they can't? Violence and aggression occur on a continuum, ranging from atrocities to silent support.

Thanks for posting that, AuldAlliance, and I hope it is widely posted to counter any suggestion that Charlie Hebdo, in attacking the 'right' of Islamist extremists to be spared from being the butt of jokes, were in any way equivalent to those on the far right who actually attack Muslims per se.

Charlie Hebdo's brave goal was to speak truth to power - whether that power was Marine le Pen or a Muslim nutter with an AK47. And that goal is essential for all of us who would live in a free state.

Shocking, cowardly crime.

I truly think that defending the FN's simplistic, narrow-minded views is an insult to the values and the memory of the cartoonists who were killed yesterday

Hear hear, Auld. That is absolutely crucial. The staff of Charlie Hebdo would be disgusted if Le Pen and her cronies used what has happened to them for ammo.

I am outraged by the Charlie Hebdo massacre and think it must be a pretty weak religion that needs armed cowards to defend it against people drawing pictures and making jokes.

Nous sommes tous Charlie

What we need is an alliance of the tolerant - of all faiths and none - versus the intolerant. Whether the intolerant are Muslim extremists or the National Front. Because the tragedy is that the Islamist extremists who murdered 12 people last night absolutely share an ideology with the French National Front - just more violent currently. They are all fascists, and their ideology all glorifies one group over humanity as a whole.

The challenge for the vast, tolerant majority is to stand up for everyone's rights to be different, to be unique, to be gay, to be black, to be Muslim, to be Jewish, to be whatever and whoever we are - but to clearly draw the line where others' rights - or lives - are attacked. We can do this - we did it in World War II when we defeated Nazism, and we can do it again. But it is essential that we do this - because to the far right, lack of action is interpreted as weakness, a belief in tolerance as a soft target.

We must not give in to the bullies, to those who would have us twisted up in fear OR hate. It IS possible to believe 100% in tolerance AND also fight like a lion to ensure that tolerance is respected by all, with no excuses.

And to those of you on this thread who have, within hours of the attack, and with precisely zero evidence (other than long-standing anti-Semitic beliefs) claimed that the attack is the work of a Zionist conspiracy, shame on you. Really, shame on you. That is not the solution. That kind of attitude is precisely the root of the problem.

And yes, I find it sadly ironic that parts of this thread have disintegrated into a Who Said What about Christianity in the OT/NT - the point is that Christians should have exactly the same rights as the rest of us to believe what the hell they want, AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT HARMING ANYONE.

I support the rights of Christians to be Christian, Muslims to be Muslim, Jews to Jewish, atheists to be atheist etc.

We're all grown-ups, we should all be able to accept that others have different views to us. No problem. Don't like it? Don't believe in it then.

The problems only start where one faith (or political group) tell us we must ALL do or be what they say. Or face violence as a result.

In a nutshell - believe what you like. Doesn't bother me. Be a Jedi. But don't you dare think that my support of your right to freedom of belief extends to giving you carte blanche to freedom of action, where that action harms another human being.

AuldAlliance, that cover shows that Charlie Hebdo are against Le Pens simplistic nationalist 'send em back' politics. But I think it's important to remember that neither did they espouse the viewpoint of creeping around in terror afraid of offending Muslims and subscribing to the 'all Muslims are victims' mentality.

There is a third way which is changing the way extremism is challenged within our society and within the Muslim community. It seems to me that at the moment there are a large number of essentially well meaning people who are prepared to defend extremism right up to, and even past, murder. We've come a long way in our society in the past two decades in the way we publicly challenge and refuse to accept racism. I'd like to see Islamic extremism go the same way.

Idsavol, the only problem with that is that by demanding people are tolerant of everybody else you suddenly find you are in a position where you are becoming intolerant of some of the others. If you demand that people are tolerant of gay people and that they tolerate all women behaving as they like and dressing as they choose, that they tolerate interfaith marriage and view those with no religion at all or a religion with multiple god's as equal to their own you instantly become intolerant of views held by a large number of the people you're supposed to be tolerating. And in a large part that will be Muslims. Although I can think of other people it would apply to as well, including the Orthodox Jewish, Sikhs and some parts of the travelling community.

This all strikes me as very 19thC, when anarchists used to run from street to street throwing bombs at people that they didn't like. Hopefully it'll die out by itself, although, I seem to remember that getting rid of the anarchists took WWI. I hope the same isn't true in this case.

aermingers, they certainly did not show any willingness whatsoever to bow to the terror that extremists try to spread.

Charb said, while admitting that it might sound pompous, that he'd rather die on his feet that live on his knees.

I was really trying to highlight that what the journalists at Charlie Hebdo embodied was an obstinate refusal to allow simplistic viewpoints or express knee jerk reactions to the complex issues we face.

We should remember that today.

aermingers - I agree that insisting on tolerance sounds complex in theory, but in practice it is actually quite easy. You gave the example of Orthodox Jews, a small minority of whom would indeed prefer eg not to sit next to a woman on a plane, as happened in an incident on a flight to Israel recently. But rather than giving in to them and accepting it as fine, there was a huge hoohah about it, the men did not get their way (though to be fair, they were trying to ask for this and were willing to pay for different seats, if I recall correctly, hardly the same as whipping out an AK47 and demanding it!).

Anyone can believe whatever the hell they like - a thought police is neither desirable or practicable. But if anyone tries to overstep the mark by applying intolerance in real life, be that sexism, racism or right up to murdering people for publishing a cartoon, then you step in and make it absolutely clear that that is unacceptable. Not that hard.

I haven't commented much on this so far, because I just feel so shocked by it, but having had time to reflect, my main thought now is just how brave the Charlie Hebdo staff were. They knew the risk they were taking - the office had been bombed once - and they still carried on publishing exactly what they wanted to publish. I don't think we have any comparable publications in the UK, do we?

Or to put it another way, I might look at a really fat person and think 'you're really fat'. That's fine and entirely normal. That thought does not make me 'fattist'. But if I walk up to that fat person and say 'you're really fat, you know', or refuse to give them a job because of their weight, for example, or post a blog laughing at their size - let alone gun them down because I have a pathological hatred of fat people - then that's not OK.

Can you see the difference?

There has been another shooting. :(

Well said, hackmum.

Hamper - not yet clear if connected, I think.

Incredibly brave of them, I agree. And I would be overcome with pride if a British publication were to publish these cartoons in solidarity, yet I can understand why they are too scared.

Reference to Zionist conspiracies and control of the media will get you taken off air if you ring LBC, and that is a station with no shortage of crackpot callers. When your little theories are too nutty for LBC, its time to sit down, in a dark room, with a cold flannel and re-evaluate a few things.

Where Hamper?

As a Jew, I really wish Zionist conspiracies were true, BTW. It would make my life so much easier! But as someone who knows a lot of high-up Jews, including the former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks socially (very witty guy) can I just categorically state that there isn't even a teeny tiny let alone a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Never has been. If you want to find out why people think there is, do a spot of googling on the history of Nazism, which is where your ideas come from. Not a connection to be proud of.

idsavol I think the idea of an alliance of tolerance is a good one (I agree that the extremists and the FN are all fascists) but I think unfortunately history shows that tolerance is very fragile and easily destroyed by political manipulators.

Even WW2 is not a good example, yes there was a grand alliance against fascism (which of course included a communist mass murderer) but this was also the time when Japanese-Americans were put in camps and the world did almost nothing to save the Jews.

Look at Bosnia, within a few years they went from a peaceful society where intermarriage between groups was common, to a war-torn country with genocidal campaigns. It turns out not to be so difficult to make people fearful and hateful, tolerance seems to be a luxury of peacetime and prosperity that gets thrown out the window as soon as times get hard.

So I agree with you but I'm afraid I'm too cynical perhaps. I am really afraid for Europe right now.

The challenge for the vast, tolerant majority is to stand up for everyone's rights to be different, to be unique, to be gay, to be black, to be Muslim, to be Jewish, to be whatever and whoever we are

That's fine in theory but what happens when a particular social group decides to, for example, kill women or children for some perceived transgression,etc.? We must be careful not to conflate tolerance with moral relativism. Do we accept anything, any behaviour, any action because of someone's declared right to belong to a group/belief system?

Had to dash off but my main point is that:

Inequality (ANY inequality) =violence

We live in enormously unequal societies. HOWEVER, democratic societies recognise these inequalities and are trying to change (hence the changes in acceptable language use, positive discrimination). These systems are not perfect by any means, and whole social groups still suffer, but we have laws to try and equalise people, we have institutions and procedures which are supportive of democratic processes such as social mobility, human rights, etc.. We are trying to create more equal societies. Any social system which does not recognise equality inherent within it and where that inequality is inherent in its institutions, laws and systems will create violence. Islam has to look inwardly at itself and recognise these inequalities for what they are (e.g., views toward non-Muslims, women) and address them, as we do here on a daily basis.

I'm glad this thread has dropped the old/ New Testament mum I jumbo and has returned to the core issue of freedom of expression

I feel we are all missing the point. Time after time people have said that western values permit freedom of speech and therefore cartoons of any religious figure are permissible under our values if freedom of speech

What we have failed to realise is that there is a growing clamour from Muslims born in the west and in the UK claiming that we no longer have a monopoly on western culture and therefore no longer have the right yo define what is and what us not acceptable in doing so we need to accommodate the values and beliefs of those who claim western culture by birth but are not Judeo-Chrustisn. The cartoons are not acceptable to them and, as they are western too, western values should change - that is their argument
but by accommodating those demands we in the UK will be throwing away centuries of hard won freedoms. That is not acceptable to me. So we do have a crash if cultures. I am not prepared to have my freedom of speech curtailed and they are not ore pared to accept my freedom to comment or even ridicule anything I deem to.

Perhaps the American model of a written constitution with Freedom of Speech as an in deniable non negotiable Articke us the way ahead. I have always resulted Bills of Right but in this case it's clear we need written definition of cultural values to defend our western traditional values