Charlie Hebdo attack, Paris, FR

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain Kremmen said:
There are about 2.8 million Muslims in the UK..
The only terrorist events we have had in the last 14 years were the awful 7/7 attack which resulted in 56 deaths and hundreds of injuries, and two brutal killings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#2000s
If the majority of Muslims are hell-bent on killing us, then they haven't done a good job of it have they?
Click to expand...

If you want to discuss religious-related violence, you need to consider far more than just the spectacular terrorist attacks. You'd also need to consider all the verified attack attempts that were either aborted or intercepted, of which there are a significant number that could have each had devastating consequences (i.e. the Coca Cola plane bombers). Even more significantly from a numbers standpoint, you need to consider all the incidents of domestic violence, vandalism, individual assaults and whatnot, although it gets difficult to separate from causes such as poverty (which in turn is aggravated by a lack of secular education).

I wouldn't say anything close to a majority of British Muslims are hell-bent on killing white anglo-saxon protestants, but if you were to instead ask whether they're willing to live in an increasingly secular society, tolerate and protect the right to criticize their religion, the results are somewhat upsetting, and the outlook is genuinely frightening in the countries most British Muslims look to for religious guidance.

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/10/05/sharia-islamic-law-statistics/

As just a few small examples, in 2006 40% of British Muslims were polled as wanting Sharia law in parts of the country, and 1/5 of them sympathized with the feelings and motives of the 7/7 bombers. In 2011, 68% of them said they wanted to bring legal prosecution against anyone perceived as insulting Islam.

Then you move on to countries like Pakistan and Egypt, where more than 3/4 of the population supports mandatory Sharia law ruling over all Islamic countries and punishments such as flogging and stoning for "crimes" such as adultery and blasphemy. IMO such countries should have received the Putin treatment several decades ago.
 
I would like to see the exact questions in this 2006 survey.
They may have been heavily loaded.
Can you find a link?

Some articles of Sharia Law may be enacted in British Law this year.
There is nothing wrong with it in principle.
When the decisions involve marriage and divorce, inheritance etc it makes no sense trying to shoehorn British Muslims into standard family law.
All parties involved would have to agree to use the Sharia system.
It would not involve criminal cases.
I believe that Jews already have their own courts for such purposes.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
I would like to see the exact questions in this 2006 survey.
They may have been heavily loaded.
Can you find a link?

Some articles of Sharia Law may be enacted in British Law this year.
There is nothing wrong with it in principle.
When the decisions involve marriage and divorce, inheritance etc it makes no sense trying to shoehorn British Muslims into standard family law.
All parties involved would have to agree to use the Sharia system.
It would not involve criminal cases.
I believe that Jews already have their own courts for such purposes.
Click to expand...

I'll try to get back to you on all that. I don't think Sharia in the form you describe it would be such a bad thing, but if I'm not mistaken (and feel free to check the sources linked from the citation I provided), the 40% figure from 2006 refers to imposing mandatory Sharia, rather than voluntary discrimination, and it goes well beyond marriage and divorce courts.
 
If you want to discuss religious-related violence, you need to consider far more than just the spectacular terrorist attacks
Click to expand...
You would also need to consider the actions of the explicitly and overtly Christian military commanders in the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, for example.

Especially the Air Force guys from the fundamentalist faction centered in Colorado.
 
The Marquis said:
The inherent assumption is nearly always that we should not judge because we do not understand. It is a soft stance, and one propagated simply because it requires very little effort, and an excuse for being unable to reach a decision.
Click to expand...

It can also be a stance used by that which is not understood, that avoids the need to explain something it wishes not to explain to prevent the inherent inconsistency and hypocrisy from being understood for what it is.
 
CptBork said:
I'll try to get back to you on all that. I don't think Sharia in the form you describe it would be such a bad thing, but if I'm not mistaken (and feel free to check the sources linked from the citation I provided), the 40% figure from 2006 refers to imposing mandatory Sharia, rather than voluntary discrimination, and it goes well beyond marriage and divorce courts.
Click to expand...

Here's the question regarding the bombers. Sunday Telegraph ICM Poll. February 2006

Q.7. Irrespective of whether you think the London bombings were justified or not, do you personally have any sympathy with the feelings and motives
of those who carried out the attacks?

This was couched in way likely to get a high positive response.

The question on Sharia Law was:

Q.10 Would you support or oppose there being areas of Britain which are pre-dominantly Muslim and in which Sharia law is introduced?

Is that for everyone, or just for people who want to solve their disputes that way?

See http://www.icmunlimited.com/pdfs/2006_february_sunday_telegraph_muslims_poll.pdf

This was a single poll of 500 people, with some very loaded questions.
A respectable newspaper like the Sunday Telegraph should not have been stirring up trouble at this time.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
Here's the question regarding the bombers. Sunday Telegraph ICM Poll. February 2006

Q.7. Irrespective of whether you think the London bombings were justified or not, do you personally have any sympathy with the feelings and motives
of those who carried out the attacks?

This was couched in way likely to get a high positive response.
Click to expand...

I agree that the question is too vague to draw definitive conclusions from the response, although it should merit concerns.

Captain Kremmen said:
The question on Sharia Law was:

Q.10 Would you support or oppose there being areas of Britain which are pre-dominantly Muslim and in which Sharia law is introduced?

Is that for everyone, or just for people who want to solve their disputes that way?

See http://www.icmunlimited.com/pdfs/2006_february_sunday_telegraph_muslims_poll.pdf

This was a single poll of 500 people, with some very loaded questions.
A respectable newspaper like the Sunday Telegraph should not have been stirring up trouble at this time.
Click to expand...

The source I provided has a second citation regarding this issue which seems to come from a separate survey which, if I'm not mistaken, refers to Sharia mandatorily applying to British Muslims (at least in predominantly Muslim areas).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tudents-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html

Yes, these are bad times to be stirring up trouble just for the sake of trouble, and there are many on the anti-Muslim far right who are only too eager to do so. What we need to be seeing then, are surveys of European Muslims showing that they do indeed support the basic human right to openly criticize any religion. If one doesn't support freedom of and freedom from religion for all human beings of all races and backgrounds, one cannot call themselves a "moderate" just because they believe blowing up shopping malls would be going too far.

Far more concerning to me is the connection Muslim communities in the West share with religious leaders in countries such as Egypt and Pakistan, where the public attitude towards genuine religious freedom is nothing short of barbaric and outright criminal (and should earn such nations a long-term exile from the civilized world).
 
iceaura said:
You would also need to consider the actions of the explicitly and overtly Christian military commanders in the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, for example.

Especially the Air Force guys from the fundamentalist faction centered in Colorado.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to include the murderous bastard who started it all by inventing the wheel. :rolleyes: Last I checked, France openly opposed the invasion of Iraq, so why didn't ISIS/Al Whoever go shoot Dick Cheney in the face instead? Yes Christian fundamentalists are a problem, even though even more Iraqis actually died from sectarian violence as opposed to US army actions, and the Iraqi government is now begging the US to return after it voluntarily left.

The issue is not about whose fundamentalists are causing more chaos, the issue is about societal attitudes towards freedom of religion and freedom to criticize religion.
 
Another potentially dodgy poll. 300 people. Students. Opinions taken from those who took the trouble to reply.
And again, what were the exact questions?

This is what it says on wiki about the organisation that did the poll.

The CSC said that it had no political affiliations and aimed to be impartial and non-partisan in carrying out its work.[8] A frequently referenced media source, the CSC was labelled by parts of the media such as the BBC and The Guardian as "right leaning",[9] its research has been described as "controversial"[10] and it attracted criticism from the National Assembly Against Racism,[11] the National Union of Students[11] and the Scottish-Islamic Foundation, whose chief executive Osama Saeed described the CSC, along with the Policy Exchange, as a "right-wing 'stinktank'".[12][13] By contrast, the CSC's findings were more favourably received by other media outlets, most notably the British right-of-center press such as The Daily Mail, The Spectator and Daily Telegraph.[14] Melanie Phillips of The Spectator described the Centre as "invaluable",[15] and the Telegraph 's Damian Thompson described Murray as the Centre's "brilliant young director" in his Daily Telegraph blog
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Social_Cohesion
 
Captain Kremmen said:
Another potentially dodgy poll. 300 people. Students. Opinions taken from those who took the trouble to reply.
And again, what were the exact questions?

This is what it says on wiki about the organisation that did the poll.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Social_Cohesion
Click to expand...

Do you have an alternative source which paints a different statistical picture for British Muslims? After all, if I'm not mistaken, you're the one asserting that there's only a virtually negligible minority opposing secular society and freedom of speech. Whether the picture is accurate or not, I think it's nonetheless time for us to reevaluate our education systems and the relationship between church and state, with an emphasis on having all children mandatorily exposed both to a secular skills-oriented education, and to the various elements of diversity in modern Western society. Believe in whatever you want, but you don't get to graduate until you can at least synthesize some of the very same arguments modern scientists use to justify their theories and postulates, and you don't get to cut class just to avoid hearing a woman speak about the daily beatings she took for being a lesbian.

Anecdotally speaking, I've met my share of radicalized British Muslims myself, I even lived with one for a semester when I was an undergraduate. The only thing holding some of these guys back, as far as I could tell, was that they couldn't kick their drug and alcohol addictions and were therefore locked in a perpetual identity crisis that leaves them looking and sounding like Ali G.
 
Last edited:
"You would also need to consider the actions of the explicitly and overtly Christian military commanders in the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, for example."

Was that in the name of their god?
Click to expand...
Yes.

The degree to which US military, intelligence, and other foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East have been influenced by US Protestant Christian fundamentalism, is one of the neglected aspects of W's Follies.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
No-one seems to have asked Muslims their opinions since 2006.
Click to expand...

And we have no indications that we ought to expect a significant change since then, either. Maybe we should formally ask British Muslims for their opinions then, before a priori proclaiming that they're overwhelmingly liberal and tolerant towards other religions and lifestyles?
 
Captain Kremmen said:
Yes, it's odd.
The majority of Muslims would want them stopped from corrupting their children.
But preachers of hate are not prosecuted for breaking the law.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on whom you consider to be a fundamentalist, as well as whom the majority of British Muslims consider to be fundamentalist. A fundamentalist doesn't have to be making bombs in their bathtub to blow up the office where they collect their welfare cheques, in order to qualify for the title. If those in Britain who reject freedom of religion and the right to freely criticize religion are nothing but a negligible minority of the total, they're certainly one of the more visible, vocal groups, and the mainstream leaders are disturbingly silent. As it stands, I think the Charlie Hebdo attack and other attacks/attempts throughout Europe, along with some of the published responses, lend credence to right wing politicians' complaints that Islamic-based bigotry is a growing problem and is being unduly ignored.

The first step should be to evaluate religious communities of all stripes throughout Europe and determine just what their attitudes are towards secularism and integration, and see if the picture looks any better than the one painted by my own sources. When it comes to secular democracy and human rights, I'm not of the mindset to be freely giving the benefit of the doubt to people intimately tied to bronze age superstitions.
 
Last edited:
CptBork said:
If those in Britain who reject freedom of religion and the right to freely criticize religion are nothing but a negligible minority of the total, they're certainly one of the more visible, vocal groups, and the mainstream leaders are disturbingly silent. As it stands,
Click to expand...

We don't have any polls so it's conjecture.
My feeling is that most Muslims in Britain would favour freedom of religion but would like a law banning people from criticizing their religion.
They won't get a law like that.

The big problem with censorship is "Whose standards do you use as the yardstick?".
I thought that Muslims were being excessively sensitive regarding the Danish cartoons that kicked it off in 2006.
I still do. Who is to tell us that we can't draw a picture of someone?
My judgement was not held by many people worldwide who protested and in some cases killed people.
On the other hand I feel that the CH cartoons were deliberately trying to provoke a reaction with little regard for the consequences.
If everyone could use my standards that would make me happy, but of course that won't happen.

Any controls on such publications would need to be "breach of the peace" or "hate speech" laws rather than laws on censorship or blasphemy.
 
Last edited:
Captain Kremmen said:
On the other hand I feel that the CH cartoons were deliberately trying to provoke a reaction with little regard for the consequences.
If everyone could use my standards that would make me happy, but of course that won't happen.

Any controls on such publications would need to be "breach of the peace" or "hate speech" laws rather than laws on censorship or blasphemy.
Click to expand...
One of the founding members of Charlie Hebdo agrees with you, in part. Henri Roussel, who was there at the beginning and was deemed a founding member all those years ago accused Charb of dragging the team to their deaths..

One of the founding members of Charlie Hebdo has accused its slain editor, Stéphane Charbonnier, or Charb, of “dragging the team” to their deaths by releasing increasingly provocative cartoons, as five million copies of the “survivors’ edition” went on sale.

Henri Roussel, 80, who contributed to the first issue of the satirical weekly in 1970, wrote to the murdered editor, saying: “I really hold it against you.”

In this week’s Left-leaning magazine Nouvel Obs, Mr Roussel, who publishes under the pen name Delfeil de Ton, wrote: “I know it’s not done”, but proceeds to criticise the former “boss” of the magazine.

Calling Charb an “amazing lad”, he said he was also a stubborn “block head”.

“What made him feel the need to drag the team into overdoing it,” he said, referring to Charb’s decision to post a Mohammed character on the magazine’s front page in 2011. Soon afterwards, the magazine’s offices were burned down by unknown arsonists.

Delfeil adds: “He shouldn’t have done it, but Charb did it again a year later, in September 2012.”​



The reaction from Charlie Hebdo's lawyers was one of anger that Nouvel Obs published the piece from Henri Roussel, declaring it to be poor form to make and publish such comments in light of what happened, calling the piece venomous.

Irony, I suppose. The editor of Nouvel Obs provided a very good explanation of why such criticisms should be published.

The column drew a furious response from Richard Malka, Charlie Hebdo’s longtime lawyer.

“Charb has not yet even been buried, and [Nouvel Observateur] finds nothing better to do than publish a polemical and venomous piece on him,” Malka wrote in a letter to the magazine obtained by the Independent. “The other day, the editor of Nouvel Observateur, Matthieu Croissandeau, couldn’t shed enough tears to say he would continue the fight. I didn’t know he meant it this way. I refuse to allow myself to be invaded by bad thoughts, but my disappointment is immense.”

Croissandeau responded by saying it was important to publish Roussel’s opinion.​

“We received this text, and after a debate I decided to publish it in an edition on freedom of expression,” Croissandeau said. “It would have seemed to me worrisome to have censored his voice, even if it is discordant. Particularly as this is the voice of one of the pioneers of the gang.”​

Freedom of expression goes both ways.



​
 
Good Link.
It's not just about "can you do it?" it is also about "should you do it?" and "is it worth doing?"

This was an interesting quote from the article:
This is not the first time Delfeil has disagreed with the modern Charlie, accusing Charb’s predecessor of turning it into a Zionist and Islamophobic organ.

That was after Philippe Val, the previous editor, fired one of its historic figures, Maurice Sine, for publishing a cartoon on the marriage of Nicolas Sarkozy’s son, Jean, to a Jewish retailing heiress, which he considered anti-Semitic.
Click to expand...

Was that the same example of double standards as you quoted earlier?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top