Another terrorist attack (likely) motivated by Western satire

[LSK]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/world ... share&_r=0

PARIS — Masked gunmen with automatic weapons opened fire in the offices of a French satirical newspaper on Wednesday in Paris, the police said, killing 12 people and then escaping in a car.

President François Hollande said the attack on the weekly, Charlie Hebdo, was “without a doubt" an act of terrorism and raised the nationwide terror alert to its highest status. He said that several terrorist attacks had been thwarted in recent weeks.

[...]

Charlie Hebdo is part of a venerable tradition in France, deploying satire and insolence to take on politicians and the police, bankers and religions of all kinds, including this week a mock debate about whether Jesus existed or not.

The weekly was born in controversy in 1970 with the ban of a publication called Hara-Kiri after it mocked the death of former President Charles de Gaulle. That prompted its journalists to set up a new weekly, Charlie Hebdo, a reference to its reprint of Charlie Brown cartoons from the United States

Cue the reactionary discussions everywhere, where one side indicts all Muslims for this attack, and the other side refuses to admit that Islam might be a significant element promoting beliefs that directly conflict with Western, liberal values in many parts of the world.

[Gendo]

I saw "Good Night, and Good Luck" last night. I couldn't help but think that in many ways, Islam today is what Communism was back then.

[sikax]

It's one thing that Islam conflicts with Western values and it's another for a Western newspaper to deliberately satirize Islam to the point of egregious insult.

[LSK]

It's one thing that Islam conflicts with Western values and it's another for a Western newspaper to deliberately satirize Islam to the point of egregious insult.

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here—that Charlie Hebdo should not be in the business of offensive satire?

[CashRules]

Yeah, that confuses me as well.

[Cassius Clay]

I think what Sikax might be getting at is that there is a difference between satire and propaganda.

[sikax]

It's one thing that Islam conflicts with Western values and it's another for a Western newspaper to deliberately satirize Islam to the point of egregious insult.

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here—that Charlie Hebdo should not be in the business of offensive satire?

I think what Sikax might be getting at is that there is a difference between satire and propaganda.

Pretty much this.

[Dr_Liszt]

What Syntax said. And there is a difference between political Islam and Islam. I think Islam hardly conflicts with Western's "values".

[Boomer]

I don't get it.

How is Charlie Hebdo propaganda?

[sikax]

I don't get it.

How is Charlie Hebdo propaganda?

They're pretty obviously extremely anti-Islam.

"Are you sure Mohammed had sex with a pig's head?"
"I cannot afford to pay a nine year old hooker."



"The Qur'an is full of shit."
"It does not stop bullets."



"One hundred lashes if you're not dying of laughter."



"If Muhammed returned..."
"I'm the prophet, you fool!"
"Shut your trap, infidel!"

Etc. Pretty fucking disgusting.

[CashRules]

Yes, and in a free society you accept things getting published that are disgusting, just like a free society accepted Hustler publishing a cartoon of Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother and the religious right didn't send armed thugs to kill the Flynt family.

[sikax]

Yes, and you'll notice I haven't condoned violence against the artists or the newspaper, but this is propaganda and that's what Boomer asked.


(Also, not sure Jerry Falwell is quite to Christianity what Muhammed is to Islam, but that's not the point.)

[Boomer]

From what I've gathered the magazine is pretty anti-religious in general.

Idk, propaganda doesn't seem like the right word to me for some reason.

[LSK]

Calling it propaganda is just a semantic way to dismiss it, given the connotations of "propaganda" in common parlance.

As for whether these cartoons constitute egregious insult, I'm confused why that's important here. So what if that was Charlie Hebdo's intention? What are we supposed to do with that information?

[Gypsy-Vanner]

That information is probably being used as a derailing tactic by anti-muslim factions to destroy any credibility of the Islamic Faith. Just read any of the articles released so far, they are all sensationalizing the incident especially with speculation of Muslim involvement. (except one which seemed to be an unbiased recounting of the incident with no mention of possible culprits)

Either way, that info is not good for pretty much anyone at all. Your average American/French/English etc...Muslim will bear the brunt of the consequences of this particular speculation with hate and violence by their neighbors. Parents will read this anti-muslim crap and teach their children anti-muslim crap. Fanatic Muslims will use the newspapers articles and the American hate as an excuse to initiate even more violence and to pass on such hate to their children.

I hope some intelligent spotlight peeps will speak out about it all and try to focus attention on the real reason behind such an incident. I won't hold my breath though.

[Dr_Liszt]

Well speaking for myself, I am not condoning the actions. This was a terrible thing that fanaticism and ignorance will lead you. But is this part:

and the other side refuses to admit that Islam might be a significant element promoting beliefs that directly conflict with Western, liberal values in many parts of the world

That rubbed me the wrong way and it IS part of the problem. Especially when you see Westerners, especially a country like France, that supposedly have so much love for freedom and all that jazz get behind and support facist states out of their own convenience, they do this while also feeding the media anti-islamic propaganda like this magazine. The magazine did nothing but encourage those sentiments. I'm not saying they got what they deserved but they are not helping with the real problem. Just propagating the real problem.

[LSK]

Killing people for publishing cartoons because those cartoons offend certain religious sensibilities is "the problem" here.

Prejudice against Muslims, and the way in which some Western nation-states conduct their international affairs, are also problems, but dragging them into this conversation serves merely to confuse the issue—and, regardless of how many careful caveats are attached to their introduction into the discussion, they end up sounding a lot like victim blaming.

[Gendo]

I know some of the more liberal minded people around here have talked about blowback in terms of 9/11 and how oppressive US policies helped lead indirectly to the 9/11 attacks. To me this is the same sort of thing as talking about how we need to fight against anti-Islam prejudice. I can see how it can be a form of victim-blaming, and immediately after this attack is NOT the right time to have that discussion... but I do think it needs to be had.

[Dr_Liszt]

Oh no. I did not mean to victim blame at all. Just that we need to stop France from being an imperialistic satanic country and allow progress in the world.

Also my issue was the whole Islam is against Western values stated in the OP. When is not like that at all. If the West really had those values then this kind of hatred would diminish a LOT. Incidents like this would be less likely to happen.

[sikax]

Killing people for publishing cartoons because those cartoons offend certain religious sensibilities is "the problem" here.

I've found the best way to solve a problem is to start as far back as I can go--to find its roots, so to speak. If we both identify the problem here as violence against cartoonists, I'd want to figure out why. I would bet the "why" here (the motive of the attackers) probably lies somewhere in here:

Prejudice against Muslims, and the way in which some Western nation-states conduct their international affairs

I don't agree that "dragging them into the conversation" confuses the issue--I believe they are intrinsically the other half of the issue.

I think we all agree that murder isn't the way to go when you're offended by something, but I don't consider it victim blaming to look at why these people were offended to the point of reacting the way they did.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

There is simply no justification for the people who killed the cartoonists. The "whys" of why they did it serve no purpose but to victim blame I think.

"if the cartoonists hadn't drawn cartoons that religious folk found insulting then they'd still be alive"

I just can't stomach the above type mentality. 1st world countries have done a stand up job of creating some atrocious foreign policy that has had horrible consequences for other countries but murder is never the answer. There are so much better ways such as education. Take the US for instance. The general populace is completely oblivious to the whys of most things regarding foreign affairs. You'd be lucky if they could answer who the current prime minister is of England is! So, start running some programs that can educate the layman on the things that are happening to a lot of people due to US policy. Provide the data, the evidence, the numbers.

Our social networking should also encourage focus on those outspoken Muslims who condemn the actions of fanatical Muslims. Our media has done a crappy job of doing this. And it's no wonder since media moguls tend to rein in their news corps to air product that is beneficial to them only however, there are a whole lot of other outlets that can be used such as Facebook, Twitter, Al Jazeera, etc...and there are a lot of outspoken Muslims who would do a world of good if only they could be heard.

I mean, so many ideas, so many things to be done that would work so much better than violence. I condemn the people that murdered these cartoonists. I condemn them and will grant no benefit of doubt in their case.

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

I don't find the cartoons shown from Charlie Hebdo to be particularly funny - they're fairly "low-brow" stuff just trying to have a swipe at what they perceive to be an easy target - but if they'd done similar style cartoons about Christianity no-one would have batted an eyelid. So it comes down to intentions and people's right to offend/not be offended.

If Charlie Hedbo had printed those with the express intention of trying to aggravate and offend people then they possibly shouldn't have (that's not to try to justify today in any way) in a wider - it's essentially trolling to print something just to try to offend someone else type manner and people generally agree that trolling is "wrong". But I don't think they did. I think they did it because they thought it was funny and they didn't care if in the process of making the majority of their readers laugh they offended some other people who (let's face it) aren't their readers.

So do people have the right to not be offended? Not automatically. In fact, not generally. About the only time I would say that they have any sort of moral high ground is when they are essentially minding their own business and someone goes out of their way to pro-actively come to them and offend them. Because that's no longer just someone being offended but beginning to creep into the realms of them being the victim of harassment or bullying. In the case of a magazine this just doesn't apply. If people don't like it then don't look at it. Unless the magazine is being posted through their doors when they didn't ask for it or the like then I don't see the problem.

My two cents...

[sikax]

These are good.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/h ... icAK1E7gO7

My favorite (poignant):

[Boomer]

Many good cartoons, haunting.

[Cassius Clay]

I don't think it's victim blaming to point out that their cartoons are not harmless. It is irresponsible to not look at the big picture.

[Cassius Clay]

I think it's also important to distinguish between the roots of Islamophobia and justifications for Islamophobia...the things that racists point to to say, "see? we were right to be racist!" We should be careful not to play into their games...not be distracted by their justifications. Understand that their racism is deeper than this...it is historic. Don't give them outs by acting like these terrorist actions are were it comes from. It would be there without terrorism.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

I don't think it's victim blaming to point out that their cartoons are not harmless. It is irresponsible to not look at the big picture.

I'm not sure how you could justify such speculation without it being victim blaming?

Let's use a rape analogy then.

"Her drinking herself drunk is harmful as she could then be raped".
"They drawing cartoons ridiculing a religion is harmful as they could then be murdered"

Pretty much everyone here would agree the first is victim blaming. The 2nd is a clear and concise analogy to the 1st and so logically we should say this is victim blaming also. Think about it, men were conditioned to view women as objects and something to be used as they please. Men were conditioned to view anyone who blasphemy their god as something to punish.

We know there are underlying issues with Islam and Western countries but it is not useful to speculate about such things with an incident like this because it will only serve to incite hatred between both groups. History proves that to us with 9/11 and other terrorist attacks.

[LSK]

I think it's also important to distinguish between the roots of Islamophobia and justifications for Islamophobia...the things that racists point to to say, "see? we were right to be racist!" We should be careful not to play into their games...not be distracted by their justifications. Understand that their racism is deeper than this...it is historic. Don't give them outs by acting like these terrorist actions are were it comes from. It would be there without terrorism.

I don't think anybody here is advocating that we should accept the bigot's explanation that attacks-like-this are what actually motivate his or her bigotry.

[LSK]

I don't think it's victim blaming to point out that their cartoons are not harmless. It is irresponsible to not look at the big picture.

As Gypsy-Vanner notes, let's consider the intoxicated rape victim (and change just a few words):

"I don't think it's victim blaming to point out that [their drunken antics] are not harmless. It is irresponsible to not look at the big picture."

This reads very differently. It's almost offensive in tone now.

And yet, only the victim's action has changed. Both sets of actions, however—getting drunk and publishing cartoons—are actions that people in a free society ought to be able to engage in without fear of reprisal.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

You can type Tara. Gypsy Vanner is annoying to type in my opinion. I almost regret picking that name.

[LSK]

Thanks! I wasn't sure what you preferred on the board.

[Derived Absurdity]

And yet, only the victim's action has changed. Both sets of actions, however—getting drunk and publishing cartoons—are actions that people in a free society ought to be able to engage in without fear of reprisal.

No. No, they're not. Promoting hate speech against a class of people which is already marginalized and oppressed, thereby implicitly promoting discrimination and violence (which is self-evidently what all hate speech inevitably leads to) should not be tolerated or allowed in a civilized society. Troy is completely right. Their actions are not harmless, and anyone who implies otherwise is simply deleting a huge chunk of relevant history, not to mention willfully ignoring huge injustices occurring in the present.

[Derived Absurdity]

And yet, only the victim's action has changed. Both sets of actions, however—getting drunk and publishing cartoons—are actions that people in a free society ought to be able to engage in without fear of reprisal.

No. No, they shouldn't. Promoting hate speech against a class of people which is already marginalized and oppressed, thereby implicitly promoting discrimination and violence (which is self-evidently what all hate speech inevitably leads to) should not be tolerated or allowed in a civilized society. Troy is completely right. Their actions are not harmless, and anyone who implies otherwise is simply deleting a huge chunk of relevant history, not to mention willfully ignoring huge injustices occurring in the present.

[LSK]

You're confusing fundamental differences in beliefs about the political organization of society—for example, which values we prefer in a given hierarchy of values—with, basically, ignorance. Disagreeing about the function and importance of "free speech" in society is not the same as "deleting a huge chunk of relevant history" and "ignoring huge injustices occurring in the present." In other words, you're being incredibly uncharitable to people who disagree with you by assigning motives, beliefs, and behaviors to them that you simply aren't in a position to assign or determine.

[sikax]

The drunk/rape analogy is tricky. The girl just wants to drink and get drunk. She might be with friends. She might not even have registered that there could be dangerous guys around when she started drinking. Charlie Hedbo knew full well that certain Muslims would be and have been offended and have used violence for this same issue in the past. They went into selling these cartoons knowing the danger. I don't think the same can be said for the drunk girl. I don't think the analogy fits. I think the idea of victim blaming applies differently to each case.

[Dr_Liszt]

What you people fail to understand is that we can't have the weapons to fight terrorism as long as you exist. It's that frustrating for us.

You fight Islamic extremism via secularization, via education. But we, as the third world, are denied progress by your countries. You guys get to experiment with socialist policies, with banks taking control of certain areas, the government taking control of others, you get to experiment with freedom of speech. We don't. We get killed, bomb, tortured, etc, just for standing up against you.
What your countries do is bomb us back to the stone ages, keep us in the stone age, then condemn us for living in the stone age. And I agree with Tara, the first step is to educate your countries to be more self aware of their foreign policies, because every time you see your military as heroes, it's harmful to us, every time you claim the western is progressive, it's harmful to us. You like to pretend that our governments are completely to blame, when even our governments fund the American elections. I'm pretty sure they fund the elections of countries like the U.K, France, Belgium, etc, etc. as well.

This is not like raping victims at all. This is something that comes from centuries even millenniums back and it's a symptom of the very sick world we live in.
Should we condemn the actions? Yes. I think the Charlie guys where just having fun with politics and religion, and they became victims of their own country's imperialistic measures. So what you need to understand is that even if imperialism gives you guys the highest and most wonderful standards of livings, it hurts you back too. It hurts everyone.

The solution is to allow all of us to progress.

[Derived Absurdity]

You're confusing fundamental differences in beliefs about the political organization of society—for example, which values we prefer in a given hierarchy of values—with, basically, ignorance.

No, I don't think I am. What I am accusing people of is ignorance of how "free speech" as an abstract right can be deployed as a weapon by the powerful against the powerless if power differentials and societal context are not specifically taken into account. If "free speech" is a right given to all classes of people equally - even in a highly stratified society - than it will inevitably morph into a tool which can and will be used to subjugate and discriminate against the powerless through propaganda. This story is a very clear example of that.

[LSK]

sikax, you're assuming attitudes and motivations, though. In the case of Charlie Hebdo, we do have evidence to demonstrate that they explicitly knew what might result from their actions. But we don't have that kind of information about our drunk girl. Some will have more awareness than others. I don't think it's a valid criterion to judge how equivalent the comparison is.

And, anyway, if we take the approach that "consequences matter" in determining the value of Charlie Hebdo's actions, I think that the awareness-of-the-potential-outcome by the employees of Charlie Hebdo works in their favor. When people who are willing to do violence threaten that violence in response to blasphemy (or other free speech actions that Westerners tend to value), that blasphemy deserves our special protection and support.

[Cassius Clay]

I think it's also important to distinguish between the roots of Islamophobia and justifications for Islamophobia...the things that racists point to to say, "see? we were right to be racist!" We should be careful not to play into their games...not be distracted by their justifications. Understand that their racism is deeper than this...it is historic. Don't give them outs by acting like these terrorist actions are were it comes from. It would be there without terrorism.

I don't think anybody here is advocating that we should accept the bigot's explanation that attacks-like-this are what actually motivate his or her bigotry.

The point is that we should be pay close attention to the burden of responsibility. Because that is something that is very seamlessly shifted around and obscured in oppressive/abusive dynamics. I'm already seeing hints of "respectability politics". The cartoon Sikax most recently posted with the bullets going through the building and hitting the mosque suggests that Islamophobia and harm to Muslims is caused by these terrorists actions. No, harm to Muslims is caused by racism and Western Imperialism. We have to be diligent in making that clear. Stop giving racists outs. The cartoon completely takes racists out of the picture. And I've seen others on the board hint at similar things.

[Cassius Clay]

And the rape analogy is messed up. DA is correct.

And very much what Lizst said...and Sikax.

[sikax]

Obviously Liszterine is correct.

[Derived Absurdity]

I agree with Castor, I am correct.

[sikax]

The cartoon Sikax most recently posted with the bullets going through the building and hitting the mosque suggests that Islamophobia and harm to Muslims is caused by these terrorists actions. No, harm to Muslims is caused by racism and Western Imperialism.

That's the reason I said it was poignant. Not because I agree with its sentiments, but because it completely misses the point.

When people who are willing to do violence threaten that violence in response to blasphemy (or other free speech actions that Westerners tend to value), that blasphemy deserves our special protection and support.

I don't understand. We should all support a racist publication when they're threatened with violence? I don't want to condone either. If anything I'll try and reason with the attackers if I was caught in the middle, but I certainly don't feel obligated to "support blasphemy".

[LSK]

The cartoon Sikax most recently posted with the bullets going through the building and hitting the mosque suggests that Islamophobia and harm to Muslims is caused by these terrorists actions. No, harm to Muslims is caused by racism and Western Imperialism.

These are not exclusive. Attitudes aren't socially determined by one factor.

[Cassius Clay]

The cartoon Sikax most recently posted with the bullets going through the building and hitting the mosque suggests that Islamophobia and harm to Muslims is caused by these terrorists actions. No, harm to Muslims is caused by racism and Western Imperialism.

That's the reason I said it was poignant. Not because I agree with its sentiments, but because it completely misses the point.

Okay. I agree with that.

[LSK]

When people who are willing to do violence threaten that violence in response to blasphemy (or other free speech actions that Westerners tend to value), that blasphemy deserves our special protection and support.

I don't understand. We should all support a racist publication when they're threatened with violence? I don't want to condone either. If anything I'll try and reason with the attackers if I was caught in the middle, but I certainly don't feel obligated to "support blasphemy".

If the blasphemy is such that a not-insignificant group of people (I realize that is somewhat vague) is willing to kill over it—which is completely, existentially hostile to the liberal values we otherwise enjoy and support—then yes, I think we should feel compelled to support that blasphemy, even if we think it's stupid and tasteless.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Sikax, just a small point: women are well aware of the possible danger of drinking too much or dressing a certain way. Well aware. We know there are potentially harmful consequences to our actions. The cartoonists also knew there were potential harmful consequences to their actions. And neither group is all that interested in restricting their actions just because there are some crazy ass people out there that will react violently.

[Cassius Clay]

And I really want to second, again, what Liszt said. I think it really articulates something that is missing, and undermines this "victim-blaming" derailing tactic. The cartoonists are victims of violence of extremists AND their own country's imperialist and oppressive actions. It is not victim-blaming to point out the latter...which is really the point of explaining how harmful their cartoons are...big picture. Saying VICTIM-BLAMING, when bringing this point up, is an attempt to shut down that necessary conversation/context.

[LSK]

Liszt's post, and your summary of it, make a different point altogether than "Charlie Hebdo's actions weren't harmless," which is victim-blaming. I agree that imperialist foreign actions do great harm and that they should be objected to (just as murder-catalyzed-by-blasphemy should be objected to).

[Cassius Clay]

Liszt's post, and your summary of it, make a different point altogether than "Charlie Hebdo's actions weren't harmless," which is victim-blaming. I agree that imperialist foreign actions do great harm and that they should be objected to (just as murder-catalyzed-by-blasphemy should be objected to).

No, they don't make a different point. They are relevantly connected in a way you either don't see or just don't agree with.

And it is not merely blasphemy, it is hate speech.