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

"if you tell people they shouldn't do something because it's against British values, there is a whole contested discussion about what is British and how values change over time. "

Murder is already on the statute books. As is arson, threatening violence, plotting to commit terrorism and so forth. It's not the British (or French) value that needs to be enshrined in law, it's the behaviour won't tolerate. And that already exists perfectly well.

I am in Portugal (traditionally renowned for tolerance as well, actually) and as far as I can tell all newspapers have done the "I'm Charlie" first page or have stated their solidarity to the victims or published cartoons.

"what do you DO about it? "

There's always the cry to 'DO' something after things like this but we have to accept that living in a free society where people are allowed to go about their business on the assumption that they are not criminals presents inevitable risks.

Security always has to be proportionate and appropriate. We would not like to live in a society where we were constantly being checked and restricted, just to save ourselves from one or two anarchists. 'Nous sommes tous Charlie'..... they can't kill us all.

I agree.
The best thing we can go against terrorist is not to be terrified or scared of doing what we have always done.
To continue to publish cartoons and jokes about ALL religions and groups.
To go about our normal lives, as we did in London.

I agree too with a British bill of rights idea, I'd be happy to sign a petition to at least have the government discuss it.

An example of our tolerance is that the Law Society last year issued guidelines on the interpretation of Sharia law for to allow solicitors to draw up wills that were compliant with UK law and Sharia. there was a long debate on MN about it. it penalised women as, under Sharia law, they stood to inherit less than males and posters on here said that was discriminatory and the Law Society should not be colluding with discrimination

the Law Society withdrew their guidance late last year after the public outcry

But the worrying thing was that
A) the Law Society felt the need and felt it had the right to do this
B) it condoned discrimination
C) it was a tacit acceptance of Sharia law

Vigilant people objected. Had they not done so we would have been condoning intolerance.

wills being drawn up by solicitors

Yes Cogito but a lot of the behaviour that upsets people doesn't necessarily violate those laws, which cover the extreme end of terrorist violence.

The value in the bill of rights is not just that it's law, but it's a kind of social contract among different groups in society. It helps lay down the kind of boundaries people are talking about, where you can have your private beliefs but you're supposed to be publicly tolerant. I think establishing those kind of boundaries is difficult, it helps to have something formal to fall back on.

Now you're getting back to the fact that our domestic laws, which we have exported to the Anglosphere and which have been retained by some Commonwealth countries are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Islamic laws are not.

That's where the conflict lies. Muslims must adopt our laws in full. but some of our laws contradict their belief system or their cultural practices.

Obviously any further bills of rights, ignoring Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford, should of course be discussed with posterity in mind and not just in response to 7/7, Paris, or ISIS recruits. (Not that Magna Carta was particularly insightful!)

"a lot of the behaviour that upsets people doesn't necessarily violate those laws"

What kind of upsetting behaviour might that be? The law is pretty comprehensive

That's where the conflict lies. Muslims must adopt our laws in full. but some of our laws contradict their belief system or their cultural practices.

As a portuguese muslim cleric said today on tv, then they should go and live where they are happy with these laws.
One reason I'd never live in Saudi Arabia, for example.

Does our method of tacking bits onto criminal law not have benefits? Racial hatred, Data & Communications Act, and so on? Doesn't it mean that we have at least some flexibility and don't get stuck with intransigent self interested lobbyists as they do in the States.

I'm not sure that our laws or the lack of them is the problem. It's carrying them out (and not having the European Court overturn them!) that's the problem. And, identifying the lawbreakers before they do a 7/7.

heart yes I have thought about that. But despite being married under English law our marriage is not recognised under Shariah law which makes it impossible to visit my husband's family or to travel in his home country. (We can't share a bedroom in a hotel, for example. Equally, me travelling as a single woman is not a good idea).

I have a Muslim colleague who married a Christian. She was asked to visit a client in KSA and got permission not to go because she risks being killed. I tried to go in her place but was refused a visa (along with 3 other Western women at my workplace). Another example of intolerance on the part of the supposed "allies" of the UK.

Seriously, I have been knocking around the Middle East for a while and I am not too worried. (Famous last words...)

In the end, I suspect, all western states, who don't already have one, are going to have to build their own GCHQ. I suspect that that, along with sucking up to the CIA (and bending over a lot) is the way forward.

Cogito For example, radicalisation of young people (which is a serious problem) is more limited in the US because you can't have religion in public schools. The law example that Wet cited would be dead in the water in the US because it would be manifestly unconstitutional. Government employees and funding are not supposed to do anything to promote religious practice.

Basically there are a lot of limits on religion crossing into the public sphere -- but they apply to all religions. I don't know whether people would like that in the UK. But I think it reduces tensions compared to a situation where some religions are okay and others aren't.

I apologise for being so ill informed but could someone please tell me, is the publishing of cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohammed highly offensive to all muslims or is it something that would only really upset an extremist?

I realise that only an extremist would take the actions seen in Paris yesterday and I not justifying the actions taken.

I am curious simply as to how generally offensive the cartoons would have been perceived as by muslims living in France or Western Europe.

I'm under the impression that the Quran doesn't explicitly forbid (any) depictions of the prophet, religious teachers do. And, not only a depiction, but a satirical one at that, is bound to cause upset. But, then, there's upset, and storming into an office with a machine gun and a rocket launcher...

legion

all Muslims would take offence at the cartoons as they believe Mohammed should not be depicted in any image. They get even more upset when that image us a cartoon ridiculing him.

Being upset is one thing. Get over it. Taking that upset to the point where you arm yourself with an AK 47 and slaughtering innocent people is an extreme reaction

part of the problem us that we have bent over backwards to accommodate Islam to the point where we are ore pared to turn a blind rye to child abuse e.g. Rotherham in order to 'maintain good relations' as Dennis Shane recently admitted. When you put a sector of society above the law you are telling them that the law dies not apply to them. That is a dangerous situation

But I am becoming very fed up indeed with Muslims claims I of Islamophobia and portraying themselves as victims.

I don't know what was wrong with the police in Rotherham. But, I suspect the borough council's inactivity was down to politics/votes, plain and simple.

Why the police did nothing, though, is a good question.

They're only rumours at this stage. But, there are accusations that the Rotherham police persuaded girls not to press charges and delivered them, in some cases, back to their abusers. If it's true, that has nothing to do with good community relations.

heart - yes, I understand your point and it's something I struggle with as a feminist. If I thought there was even a tiny chance that either DH or his family shared those views I would run for the bloody hills! However, I am very close to my in laws and I dislike the idea of being unable to visit them. I see it as a means to an end really.

I feel for my DH too. He loves his country and is proud of his heritage but he also feels that his country has been "Islamised" by extremists, and is going back in time. He wants me to see some of the beauty he remembers from his childhood before it all disappears or is blown up. Most of what is usually referred to as the "liberal elite" (ie educated people who don't embrace medieval values) have fled and are living in Europe and the U.S. Which is great for those countries, but less so for those left behind without the means to leave.

Which comes back to the original point of the thread really - extremists have done this kind of thing for decades and have often succeeded. Which is not to downplay the seriousness of the Paris attack, btw. However international travel, diverse communities and (ironically) Western tolerance make future attacks virtually certain. Appeasing and making excuses (yes BBC, I am looking at you... ) might make us feel very tolerant, superior and worldly but is the worst possible response.

Thanks for the explanations.

I did not mean to imply that being offended by the cartoons was in some way justification for the actions taken. In fact I would be surprised if the murders were not carried out by those looking for a target rather than people who were genuinely offended by depiction of the prophet anyway.

That said I do think that as a wider issue, freedom of speech comes with great responsibility. Just because I can say something doesn't mean that it is right that I do.

But again, I stress that if someone does use their right to freedom of speech they should not die for it.