We will stand tall unbowed in the name of tolerance, compassion and freedom in all of its aspects. Very moving article, thank you, Sylvie.
French Satire isn't a lose canon, and Charlie Hebdo weren't trigger-happy scribblers. Satire is limited by French law, and you can be sued heavily for mocking people as individuals or worse, as a group.
The one "thing" French law doesn't protect is religion. The law protects people and buildings, but not the objects of cult (hence the piss Christ), and not the gods and prophets (hence the caricature). Public figures are considered as "functions" rather than individuals (hence the Pope with his Swiss guard lover).
This is an essential difference between France and for instance the US or the UK.
In the US Justice, you swear with your hand on a Bible (or a Coran, or a Thorah). Most secular French would see this as an outright insult to their secular nature.
History gives many reasons to that.
Many people fled the UK, or France, for the Americas because of religious persecutions in Europe, hence a wide ranging protection on religions in the Americas.
France has dealt with numerous religious feuds over centuries, and decided that gods and prophets had to be accountable before satirists.
Last but not least : in this precise case, it is wrong to link the common history of Algeria and France to this dubbious religious issue.
French Communists died for the independence of Algeria, which involved no religious background at all at the time, all the opposite. The Algerian National Liberation Front had links with the USSR, and was opposed to religions.
The one "thing" French law doesn't protect is religion. The law protects people and buildings, but not the objects of cult (hence the piss Christ), and not the gods and prophets (hence the caricature). Public figures are considered as "functions" rather than individuals (hence the Pope with his Swiss guard lover).
This is an essential difference between France and for instance the US or the UK.
In the US Justice, you swear with your hand on a Bible (or a Coran, or a Thorah). Most secular French would see this as an outright insult to their secular nature.
History gives many reasons to that.
Many people fled the UK, or France, for the Americas because of religious persecutions in Europe, hence a wide ranging protection on religions in the Americas.
France has dealt with numerous religious feuds over centuries, and decided that gods and prophets had to be accountable before satirists.
Last but not least : in this precise case, it is wrong to link the common history of Algeria and France to this dubbious religious issue.
French Communists died for the independence of Algeria, which involved no religious background at all at the time, all the opposite. The Algerian National Liberation Front had links with the USSR, and was opposed to religions.
2
Freedom of speech is a imperative. Countries of the world must promote this right. Religion is not about killing. Once 'they' do kill, it is the people, govt. that must respond swiftly. France stood up quickly-bravo for them. All countries MUST stand up together an fight terrorism in all its forms.
1
Sylvie Kauffmann, the values you are talking about are not French. They are the values of whoever happen to have them. Same for other, different values. And same for opposing values. If you call them "French", it's because you have done your little survey and found out that whoever happens to be French have them. Did you? Well, it seems to me that France (as any other place) is rather more pluralistic than that, value-wise. So in that case, what you might want to do is just insist on the difference between the "true French" (i.e. the ones that side with your views) and the not so true ones. In that case, your opinion piece can be read as a call for civil war. Don't you think? I do, and I don't like it. So keep with me on that one, will you? And, for the record (your record): I am French and you can call this "my value" if you want.
5
My congratulation to the French Special Forces, Gendarmerie and Police.
Frankly I didn't know they had such a preparation, as they showed in both their great and difficult operations.
I think that now intelligence will have much to do, having so many suspected IS French affiliates and also I believe that now also all other countries will have to control and clear all their domestic IS sympathizers, without confusing normal and honest Muslims with the IS potential members.
I am also convinced that this is the beginning of the third World War, this time against IS.
Frankly I didn't know they had such a preparation, as they showed in both their great and difficult operations.
I think that now intelligence will have much to do, having so many suspected IS French affiliates and also I believe that now also all other countries will have to control and clear all their domestic IS sympathizers, without confusing normal and honest Muslims with the IS potential members.
I am also convinced that this is the beginning of the third World War, this time against IS.
Although there can be no doubt that there is no justification imaginable for killing someone just because that person expressed something deemed offensive, I wonder if everyone who is professing Je suis Charlie would do this as fervently if Charlie Hebdo had e.g. been a white supremacist publication that had declared Arabs and Africans to be subhumans.
1
"Yet we also have a big, quiet and nonradicalized Muslim community living among us." And if the couple thrown out of the opera threw a fit would Sylvie then consider their reaction loud and radical and unacceptable. The response to repression, bigotry and economic injustice in France does not have to be between a brutal fanaticism on the one hand and acquiescence on the other.
2
Ps to my post. From what I've read, and I could be wrong, the cartoonist at Charlie Hedbo would have passionately defended the couple thrown out of the opera.
2
With all the talk about Muslims, we shouldn't ignore the author cited at the beginning of this piece. All of France is lurching dangerously rightward. Before the massacre, the reactionary & rascist Marine Le Pen had a shot at the Fench Presidency in 2017. Today, I'd put her at better than even money to win the election. Now that's scary.
1
A country cannot take into its borders vast amounts of foreigners without changing the culture and politics of said government. Countries our loosing their identities just as the isolated natives in the forests of Peru are committing suicide because of intrusions into their land and changing their life style.
Satire is necessary but it can be effective without stepping over the line and being vulgar. That is a distinction only the originators can make. Maybe this tragedy should represent to those who revel in their cleverness to reflect more on what is funny and productive rather than insulting and derogatory to cultures and religion.
Free speech has a responsibility which seems never to be raised in media. People have the society they want does not hold true. In our modern age it is the well financed.
P.S. I appreciate this freedom of speech comment section.
Satire is necessary but it can be effective without stepping over the line and being vulgar. That is a distinction only the originators can make. Maybe this tragedy should represent to those who revel in their cleverness to reflect more on what is funny and productive rather than insulting and derogatory to cultures and religion.
Free speech has a responsibility which seems never to be raised in media. People have the society they want does not hold true. In our modern age it is the well financed.
P.S. I appreciate this freedom of speech comment section.
2
" ... radical Islam can only be fought with the support of moderate Islam."
That may be an expedient policy in the short term but in the long term Islam (and other dogmatic religions) must be fought with the truth.
The truth is that ancient claims of special divine revelation are false. The truth is that human beings are fantastically complex biological organisms living in a vast space time continuum. The truth is that individual consciousness is limited between birth and death, "holy warriors" don't survive death to live in a paradise where they are fawned over by dozens of virgins. The truth is that all of the basic tenets (creation, revelation, life after death) of religion are false.
That may be an expedient policy in the short term but in the long term Islam (and other dogmatic religions) must be fought with the truth.
The truth is that ancient claims of special divine revelation are false. The truth is that human beings are fantastically complex biological organisms living in a vast space time continuum. The truth is that individual consciousness is limited between birth and death, "holy warriors" don't survive death to live in a paradise where they are fawned over by dozens of virgins. The truth is that all of the basic tenets (creation, revelation, life after death) of religion are false.
2
Was this shooting justified? Of course not. Was Charlie Hebdo legally allowed to write what he did? According to French Law probably not. But he shouldn't have died because of it. However, there are certain actions that, while legal, are not a good idea and could be downright dangerous. I have a legal right to walk into a black neighborhood wearing a white sheet and pointed (white) hat with KKK printed on the front. Legal, but probably not a good idea. Life is full of actions that, while perhaps not against the law, are dangerous. As Charlie, seconds before he died, may have understood.
2
Although not a fan of George W, one quote of his struck me as insightful,” Islamic extremists have hijacked the Islamic religion”. In France we have seen extremists under the guise of Islam undertake vengeful acts upon those who have slandered the Islamic faith by exercising the uncompromising precept of free speech. Time and again these extremists have taken center stage and have hijacked the air waves with their barbaric acts and given credence to their brand of Islam. It is not enough that westerners state that they do not speak or represent the Islamic community at large. The Islamic world community must be vocal and vociferously condemn those who act barbarically on the behalf of the Islamic faith. If silence prevails from the Islamic world; it may be perceived, thru western eyes, as condoning these acts of barbarity and acceptance of an extremist view of Islam. We in the western world can curb offensive speech in light that it may incite retaliation by extremists, walking on egg shells monitoring our thoughts and actions in hopes that we might not offend; but then we would be altering and curbing the uncompromising precept of free speech. Public safety vs. free speech is what the fundamentalists want the western world to decide on!
1
Attributing motives to terrorists is a speculative undertaking. The consensus is that in this case it is plain as day because of the identity of the target and the beliefs of the attackers. I say maybe, maybe not. Very few radical Islamists participate in terrorist attacks. And that suggests that the terrorists are somehow different. A successful Palestinian movie was dedicated expressly to understanding the motives of suicide bombers and wisely concluded that their thought processes are unknowable. Few who effectively commit suicide during the prime of life are particularly mentally healthy. I think there is every reason to believe that terrorists have motives that border on the deranged and are generally personal and inscrutable.
Neither the French nor the Germans ask Muslims to identify themselves in the national census. There are lots of estimates of the respective populations, but none is definitive. The best that can be said is that it remains unclear whether there are more Muslims in Germany or Feance.
As a woman I am particularly sensitive to the "laïcité" argument and glad that Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity offender of religions while defending the secular. Although the ban on Hijab in school or no burquas in public spaces is what people mention the most, it was not the only demand made by some radical Muslim community leaders. There was a demand that girls not be required to participate in physical education classes or art classes etc. Where does it stop? Creating a female underclass in the name of "cultural sensitivities" is unfair and dangerous.
5
This is the latest battle in the clash of civilizations between 7th-century-based Islamism on the one hand and western civilization, i.e. Judeo-Christian, civilization on the other.
The one is eager to drag down society to 7th century Islamic society and the rule of the Caliphate. Our civilization is simply eager to continue to live peacefully with all and conduct our lives based on Judeo-Christian ethical values.
Sadly, too many among us refuse to realize what we face and instead of dealing with reality prefer to veil their faces and rely on "politically correct" way of thinking and expression.
Let us hope this changes and changes fast.
The one is eager to drag down society to 7th century Islamic society and the rule of the Caliphate. Our civilization is simply eager to continue to live peacefully with all and conduct our lives based on Judeo-Christian ethical values.
Sadly, too many among us refuse to realize what we face and instead of dealing with reality prefer to veil their faces and rely on "politically correct" way of thinking and expression.
Let us hope this changes and changes fast.
2
After living three days of terror, sirens nonstop, police on every corner I am again in tears, reading your article. Police officers, free to believe in whichever god they choose, were killed to protect the right of free speech.
"Charlie Hebdo because it is a symbol of our freedom"
That is why I am Charli(e)rbtié. I am free to choose in what I personally believe. I am proud to pay income taxes to a country who believes in liberty.
thank you Sylvie Kauffmann.
"Charlie Hebdo because it is a symbol of our freedom"
That is why I am Charli(e)rbtié. I am free to choose in what I personally believe. I am proud to pay income taxes to a country who believes in liberty.
thank you Sylvie Kauffmann.
1
I was struck by your quote by the author of Soumission saying that the most dangerous thought in the book was French behavior and attitudes before the election of a moderate Islamic President.
Because of its history in North Africa, and significant immigrant population, France is in an odd position, reeling from the effects of both interventions and noninterventions. You're right about the Charlie Hebo attack as not being equivalent to 9/11, which galvanized a nation and a presidency--a united front, if ever there was one-- to enact tight security controls and engage in middle eastern wars.
I think France sort of stands at the crossroads now. once the shock and ramifications of this attack gets absorbed by the people. Le Pen aside, French voters need to determine--while they can--what kind of nation they will become. Unlike the US, which never had that strong an Islamic community, France is faced with serving all its constituencies. It's a delicate balance when you think of it: "real and historic Gallic French" versus a sizeable French-speaking community with feet in two or more countries.
Perhaps the French government should heed Mr. Houellebecq's observation about what happens before an Islamic presidency. Do they start tightening the porous borders so many see as responsible for the freedom of terrorists to roam, travel, and plot? Do they adopt US anti-terror policies and tactics when their country has never used them? Do the French give in to, or defy, fear?
Because of its history in North Africa, and significant immigrant population, France is in an odd position, reeling from the effects of both interventions and noninterventions. You're right about the Charlie Hebo attack as not being equivalent to 9/11, which galvanized a nation and a presidency--a united front, if ever there was one-- to enact tight security controls and engage in middle eastern wars.
I think France sort of stands at the crossroads now. once the shock and ramifications of this attack gets absorbed by the people. Le Pen aside, French voters need to determine--while they can--what kind of nation they will become. Unlike the US, which never had that strong an Islamic community, France is faced with serving all its constituencies. It's a delicate balance when you think of it: "real and historic Gallic French" versus a sizeable French-speaking community with feet in two or more countries.
Perhaps the French government should heed Mr. Houellebecq's observation about what happens before an Islamic presidency. Do they start tightening the porous borders so many see as responsible for the freedom of terrorists to roam, travel, and plot? Do they adopt US anti-terror policies and tactics when their country has never used them? Do the French give in to, or defy, fear?
2
Many people interpret the Charly Hebdo attack as an attack to 'our values' but I do not agree. Harakiri, the satirical journal that existed some time ago was closed by the authorities in France because of its depiction of the virgin Mary. French sensibilites are not distributed equally .Moreover, do not forget that the unequal struggle in Palestine is remarkably able to supply a political focus for parts of a muslem youth in France that has very little economic and social future. These murderous attacks to a 'world' are, like the attacks of the Rote Armee in Germany or Brigate Rosso in Italy,fruitless translations of a dead end situation. Speaking about 'attacks' to our values is not really adding to understanding why small parts of a community radicalise into lethal wolf packs . Developing our own interpretations what this is about, without meaningful interaction with the world these killers come from, is not helping. That is one of the reasons I deplore these killers can not be put on trial.
4
Behavior is overdetermined. There is more than one narrative to explain most everything that people do. Nor is truth to be found in narrowing down those narratives to but one. The narratives where Islam is to blame, or where Western colonialism is to blame, or where individual insanity is to blame -- all true, all partial, and none refutes the others. It is only by considering them all, in a sophisticated way, that the larger truth can be approximated.
This seeking for a single true narrative, ironically, is the mistake made my many who favor some particular religion, but occurs among those who fancy some flavors of science as well. There are exceptions among religions, strains of Jewish and Buddhist practice which favor multiple narratives and wide-open debate, strains of science which favor the Socratic model. But far more common in religion and even science is the sort of construction of identity identified with a claimed "pure" narrative. Such identities are not compatible with sophisticated civilization, despite the claims from those who seek refuge in them.
The French identity is famously sophisticated. The question for Islamic identity is whether, and for how many Muslims, it can become sophisticated too. Rushdie shows the way in this. The narratives received from religions are well worth engaging. But when any of them is taken as sole guide to life, the person so taking it so is puts himself or herself outside civilization.
This seeking for a single true narrative, ironically, is the mistake made my many who favor some particular religion, but occurs among those who fancy some flavors of science as well. There are exceptions among religions, strains of Jewish and Buddhist practice which favor multiple narratives and wide-open debate, strains of science which favor the Socratic model. But far more common in religion and even science is the sort of construction of identity identified with a claimed "pure" narrative. Such identities are not compatible with sophisticated civilization, despite the claims from those who seek refuge in them.
The French identity is famously sophisticated. The question for Islamic identity is whether, and for how many Muslims, it can become sophisticated too. Rushdie shows the way in this. The narratives received from religions are well worth engaging. But when any of them is taken as sole guide to life, the person so taking it so is puts himself or herself outside civilization.
3
Sylvie Kauffman, thank you for presenting a thoughful OpEd in the face of the thousands of comments published in the Times, the majority of which seem to be anything but calm or thoughtful.
You close with a sentence about integrating Islam into our core values but I wonder if that position needs further analysis. I have many close friends and acquintances here in Sweden who are muslim by birth and upbringing and they seem to share some of my core values. Some are thoroughly secular, others seem deeply religious but do not support violence.
I do not think a religion as such can be "integrated into core values". For me the question in simple form is what is it in each religion that results in the development of a faction that opposes core values and in the end turns to violence? One of my core values is a belief in the importance of science and especially an understanding of human evolution. Yet there are many in the US Congress who do not share that core value with me. They do not kill, however. But their failue to share that value will have unintended consequences that may be ver harmful.
Thanks for formulating the basis for reasoned discussion. Where will that discussion go further?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
You close with a sentence about integrating Islam into our core values but I wonder if that position needs further analysis. I have many close friends and acquintances here in Sweden who are muslim by birth and upbringing and they seem to share some of my core values. Some are thoroughly secular, others seem deeply religious but do not support violence.
I do not think a religion as such can be "integrated into core values". For me the question in simple form is what is it in each religion that results in the development of a faction that opposes core values and in the end turns to violence? One of my core values is a belief in the importance of science and especially an understanding of human evolution. Yet there are many in the US Congress who do not share that core value with me. They do not kill, however. But their failue to share that value will have unintended consequences that may be ver harmful.
Thanks for formulating the basis for reasoned discussion. Where will that discussion go further?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Why didn't the NYT tout the New Year's Day speech by Egyptian President Sisi to a large group of a Imams where he strongly attacked radical Jihad and called for a necessary reform of Islam because the rest of the world is turning against all Muslims? Meanwhile, our sniveling 'President' can't even bring himself to utter a word of criticism re Islam, and in fact withholds support for Egypt and Sisi because he took down the Muslim Brotherhood, an anti-western hate cult. It's obvious where Obama's sympathies lie, and it's certainly not with the West and it's first world values.
6
There is certain patronizing if not imperialist attitude in the expectation that Muslim worlds should accept values such as free speech, gender equality, democracy, etc., just as we are outrage they expect us to revere their prophet and hold him off limit. Contradiction or hypocrisy?
I shudder to think all these deaths started with some sketches a cartoonist drew and published ten years ago. What was the point? To assert free speech? To show we can? What is the point of a "right" if it proves divisive and creates disharmony, or even deaths? What is our most honorable and noblest pursuit if not that of the happiness of OTHERS?
Besides, the West already have free speech. They could say anything they want within their own sphere. They have simply be asked to stay out of some other people's sphere. Why do the West expect their world to extend to the whole universe?
Of course violence and killing is always wrong. It is wrong to kill anybody who disagree with us. It is also wrong we are intentionally offensive and disrespectful, especially when the rudeness opens neither dialogues nor minds. To assert only our right, but not the common good just seems petty and small.
Whatever the faults of the West, the change necessarily come from within the West. Any outside interference will be resented and resisted. Won't that be the case with the Muslim worlds? It is their process, their journey into the 21 century, their prerogative. Can there be any other way, that will be effective?
I shudder to think all these deaths started with some sketches a cartoonist drew and published ten years ago. What was the point? To assert free speech? To show we can? What is the point of a "right" if it proves divisive and creates disharmony, or even deaths? What is our most honorable and noblest pursuit if not that of the happiness of OTHERS?
Besides, the West already have free speech. They could say anything they want within their own sphere. They have simply be asked to stay out of some other people's sphere. Why do the West expect their world to extend to the whole universe?
Of course violence and killing is always wrong. It is wrong to kill anybody who disagree with us. It is also wrong we are intentionally offensive and disrespectful, especially when the rudeness opens neither dialogues nor minds. To assert only our right, but not the common good just seems petty and small.
Whatever the faults of the West, the change necessarily come from within the West. Any outside interference will be resented and resisted. Won't that be the case with the Muslim worlds? It is their process, their journey into the 21 century, their prerogative. Can there be any other way, that will be effective?
7
There is nothing patronizing about "free speech" and "gender equality". They are universal human rights. Not wanting to revere any given prophet is freedom of religion, another universal right.
The deaths didn't start with cartoons, it started with fanatics thinking that they could exercise veto power with deadly force over what some other people say. Freedom of speech isn't free if it doesn't include the right to say things offensive to others. You are simply advocating censorship, self- or otherwise, by arguing that we should avoid saying anything that someone else may not like.
You are clearly attempting to put saying something offensive and killing on the same moral plane and your implied moral equivalence is logically and morally bankrupt.
The deaths didn't start with cartoons, it started with fanatics thinking that they could exercise veto power with deadly force over what some other people say. Freedom of speech isn't free if it doesn't include the right to say things offensive to others. You are simply advocating censorship, self- or otherwise, by arguing that we should avoid saying anything that someone else may not like.
You are clearly attempting to put saying something offensive and killing on the same moral plane and your implied moral equivalence is logically and morally bankrupt.
5
Muslims are under attack and they feel that it is unfair to condemn them all based on the actions of a few - we all agree. But why is that the very same people, and christians do this aslo, say that all Hindus, Buddhists, and Atheists will get hell for not being muslim or christian? Targeted for their religion or non-religion?
It is amazing to me to see how people can hold one value in their daily life but when it comes to religion hold entirely different values - i guess that's the topsy-turvy world of religion, up is down, down is up.
It is amazing to me to see how people can hold one value in their daily life but when it comes to religion hold entirely different values - i guess that's the topsy-turvy world of religion, up is down, down is up.
2
These events in France are tragic, certainly.
But they are no where close in magnitude to the havoc wreaked by French colonizers in Algeria and other countries across the Sahara.
What goes around comes around.
Today's France has the same attitude as their compatriot who said over a century ago "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior races."
It is sad but hardly surprising that this attitude in France today has led to immigrants being alienated and marginalized- causing them to explode.
But they are no where close in magnitude to the havoc wreaked by French colonizers in Algeria and other countries across the Sahara.
What goes around comes around.
Today's France has the same attitude as their compatriot who said over a century ago "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior races."
It is sad but hardly surprising that this attitude in France today has led to immigrants being alienated and marginalized- causing them to explode.
5
It is to be noted that the terrorists were recruited, trained and ordered by Sunni extremists. Most of the extremism these days seems to be coming via Sunni Saudi Arabia, authors of 9/11, and whose leaders are privileged friends of the good ol' USA.
5
The world has changed. Nobody can say now what audience they are facing when they publish something. The satire and humour of Charlie Hebdo is taken lightly by the French and many educated people around the world. But the audience now includes many countries with different traditions and culture. They do not understand the mockery of their cherished prophet and they say Why? We did not hurt these people and why they mock with our traditions and our religion? And it is very easy to convince some extreme fringe of these people to seek for revenge, especially in the light of many Muslim countries devastated now by war. I think Charlie Hebdo sadly did not realize that they were not talking only to the Parisians, as they did in the past, but to the whole world and their humour was alien to and not understood in many countries.
4
Secularism does not have the same meaning in France as in the USA and English Canada (French speaking Quebecers share the French meaning). In the USA and English Canada, separation of church and state and secularism in general are not anti-religion. They just try to avoid the appearance of a dominant religion. It's pretty laissez faire, a phrase not that popular in France. French secularism on the other hand is anti-religion and tends to offend the religious - more or less by design. The religious sometimes show themselves to be offended. French laws against head scarfs and such are an example of that as is Charlie Hebdo. That doesn't justify the violent response. Nonetheless, one might consider a bit of respectful laissez faire, laissez aller on religious issues to avoid giving gratuitous offense. The fundamentalists will discover enough reasons to kill us. Why go out of our way to provide more by being purposely disrespectful of their beliefs and customs?
4
Standing on principles to other rational people is part of the French consciousness. However, taunting lunatics with "still no attack!" written on the cartoon is like courting the inevitable. But would omitting that phrase have prevented the attack? Absolutely not. Their weapons were selected and the plan was well underway long before that cartoon appeared. Or they would have chosen another target. Those men obviously needed very little provocation to enact such a savage attack, whether because a woman wearing a veil to an opera was ejected, or drawing a very funny cartoon of Muhammed the Prophet.
2
The obvious lesson is being overlooked:
Denunciations of violence is necessary and good but does nothing to address the cause: a lack of religious tolerance, or freedom from religion in the communities of these terrorists.
The cause is that people are being taught or indoctrinated to believe that criticizing or "blaspheming" against one's religion should be forbidden, and is one of the worst offenses (worse than murdering another human being for hurting somebody's religious feelings, evidently). This is true in many Muslim countries.
Angry men exist everywhere. But combine angry men with this doctrine of intolerance and then you have people committing violence against artists that upset religious sensitivities.
Denunciations of violence is necessary and good but does nothing to address the cause: a lack of religious tolerance, or freedom from religion in the communities of these terrorists.
The cause is that people are being taught or indoctrinated to believe that criticizing or "blaspheming" against one's religion should be forbidden, and is one of the worst offenses (worse than murdering another human being for hurting somebody's religious feelings, evidently). This is true in many Muslim countries.
Angry men exist everywhere. But combine angry men with this doctrine of intolerance and then you have people committing violence against artists that upset religious sensitivities.
5
Free speech in France is a relative thing.
"The Battle of Algiers", showing acts of treachery by the French military was kept off the screens for many years; as was "The Sorrow and the Pity"
Most recently a comedian, Dieudonné, was attacked by the French Media and the state for off color jokes of the Jews. Yet, when a certified bigot of Sephardic origin,darling of the French Media, who had spoken once of the genetic differences between "Africans" and "Caucasians" and most recently suggested that France's 5 million citizens of Muslim descent be deported (like Ferdinand & Isabella and the Spanish Jews), they defend his freedom of speech.
If I could, I would pose three questions to Sylvie Kauffman:
1) Do you find any hypocrisy between the treatment of Dieudonné and that of Zemmour?
2) Do you think when, in 2005, these bloodthirsty Charlie killers heard Sarkozy call the young male N Africans "slime" while promising to "karchériser" them if elected president had any effect on their attitude of France?
3) Do you think that Charlie Hebdo's (also 2005) publishing of the cartoons, through collateral damage(not intended), had been taken as a denigration of the heritage of the whole French Muslim community (even though two-thirds were/are non-practicant)?
This act of terror was taken principally to stoke conflict and help gain more adherents to radical islam. Charlie Hebdo was an easy target for their goal.
The French would be wise to not take the bait.
"The Battle of Algiers", showing acts of treachery by the French military was kept off the screens for many years; as was "The Sorrow and the Pity"
Most recently a comedian, Dieudonné, was attacked by the French Media and the state for off color jokes of the Jews. Yet, when a certified bigot of Sephardic origin,darling of the French Media, who had spoken once of the genetic differences between "Africans" and "Caucasians" and most recently suggested that France's 5 million citizens of Muslim descent be deported (like Ferdinand & Isabella and the Spanish Jews), they defend his freedom of speech.
If I could, I would pose three questions to Sylvie Kauffman:
1) Do you find any hypocrisy between the treatment of Dieudonné and that of Zemmour?
2) Do you think when, in 2005, these bloodthirsty Charlie killers heard Sarkozy call the young male N Africans "slime" while promising to "karchériser" them if elected president had any effect on their attitude of France?
3) Do you think that Charlie Hebdo's (also 2005) publishing of the cartoons, through collateral damage(not intended), had been taken as a denigration of the heritage of the whole French Muslim community (even though two-thirds were/are non-practicant)?
This act of terror was taken principally to stoke conflict and help gain more adherents to radical islam. Charlie Hebdo was an easy target for their goal.
The French would be wise to not take the bait.
4
There has been ongoing Islamic vs Christian-Judaism conflict for many centuries, but it has been very much in the background and inconsequential for the last few centuries.
WHY now this acute flare-up in the last decade or so?
WHY are the ranks of radical Islamist groups expanding exponentially?
Could it partly be;
- the US/Western intrusion and plundering in Saudi Arabia
- the so-called "collateral damage" in Afghanistan
- the repression in Chechnya
- the Abu Ghraib torture and abuse
- the prolonged injustice in Palestine
- the invasion and destruction of Iraq (Operation Shock and Awe)
- the Guantanamo torture and abuse
- the killing and destruction in Gaza
While none of this justifies the savagery in Paris, we should not ignore the question WHY?
WHY now this acute flare-up in the last decade or so?
WHY are the ranks of radical Islamist groups expanding exponentially?
Could it partly be;
- the US/Western intrusion and plundering in Saudi Arabia
- the so-called "collateral damage" in Afghanistan
- the repression in Chechnya
- the Abu Ghraib torture and abuse
- the prolonged injustice in Palestine
- the invasion and destruction of Iraq (Operation Shock and Awe)
- the Guantanamo torture and abuse
- the killing and destruction in Gaza
While none of this justifies the savagery in Paris, we should not ignore the question WHY?
5
How about: because there are now extremely large Islamic communities within western countries themselves, and those two entities have conflicting values?
1
I totally agree with Ms. Kaufmann. There is no way hard earned freedom can give away because radical Islamic people are angry.
First of all , Those who are radical Islamic must understand, In Europe and particularly in France, There was a very bloody fight waged against Religion and its supremacy, Those Christian Church radicals and their terror In their time was no Different than Todays Islamic terrorists. But they lost that fight, so They accepted and receded from their status. In that age there was no Islamic presence in France, Now there are 5 million, they have all rights as a French citizen but Even a Christian French citizen has no right to change or request abandoning what freedom won after centuries of struggle.
I believe the problem is universal, Immigration is exist all developed nations, But these nations unfortunately doesn't invest to educate those immigrants as the same level as native citizens.
Let me give you a reverse example, A French can immigrate Saudi Arabia and feels that Mecca's isolationist status to other religions people is a violation of human rights, That might be true , but This is their historical essence and no such immigrant can advocate to abolish that status.
French Freedom of speech cannot be abolish or even restrict because it is incompatible with Islam. Sorry But France is a secular nation, that says all.
First of all , Those who are radical Islamic must understand, In Europe and particularly in France, There was a very bloody fight waged against Religion and its supremacy, Those Christian Church radicals and their terror In their time was no Different than Todays Islamic terrorists. But they lost that fight, so They accepted and receded from their status. In that age there was no Islamic presence in France, Now there are 5 million, they have all rights as a French citizen but Even a Christian French citizen has no right to change or request abandoning what freedom won after centuries of struggle.
I believe the problem is universal, Immigration is exist all developed nations, But these nations unfortunately doesn't invest to educate those immigrants as the same level as native citizens.
Let me give you a reverse example, A French can immigrate Saudi Arabia and feels that Mecca's isolationist status to other religions people is a violation of human rights, That might be true , but This is their historical essence and no such immigrant can advocate to abolish that status.
French Freedom of speech cannot be abolish or even restrict because it is incompatible with Islam. Sorry But France is a secular nation, that says all.
13
Europeans, especially those in France, love intellectual freedom. Sit down a dozen people for a discussion about any popular topic and you will hear twelve points of view. In that environment, spirited debate and criticisms about nearly every topic, including religion, are typical. But there are Muslim communities in which people do not feel they have equal opportunities with everyone else and have a sense of being apart and second class citizens. That kind of situation can breed radical and angry people who don't take critical views of Islam by French publications very well, because they take it personally, as condescending rather than ironic.
12
They immigrated to France. Maybe it was a mistake and they should emigrate back to Algeria and Morocco?
3
Actually, radical Islam can only be fought in Europe with Christianity.
Fill the churches again; embrace your European culture, whether you believe or not: who cares?
Religion isn't dying. That's the lesson of the last 40 years, to the shock and dismay of secularists. If you don't keep your religion, you'll end up with theirs; like it or not.
Fill the churches again; embrace your European culture, whether you believe or not: who cares?
Religion isn't dying. That's the lesson of the last 40 years, to the shock and dismay of secularists. If you don't keep your religion, you'll end up with theirs; like it or not.
6
Secularism, humanism. You don't have to be a part of any religion. Though you can learn a lot from religions. The ancient golden rule, do unto others as you would have others do unto you, covers a lot of mileage across the ages of the various religions.
3
Mme Kauffmann does not acknowledge an elephant in the room. There is a tremendous amount of discrimination against Muslim immigrants in France, especially in the labor market. Companies will invariably hire anyone but them. This is an important cause of unemployment and poverty in Muslim communities. When young Muslims, in particular, can't find work, they are susceptible to radicalization.
24
This was true ten years ago. And this is still true for some jobs or some geographic areas. But the reality is more complex. I am system engineer in Paris and 30% of my colleagues are muslims. My boss is black. My doctor is jewish from Lebanon and his wife is Algerian. And the list could be long... It is not just a matter of religion or skin color. It's mostly question of where you live. A white french man growing up in the projects of 93 district has clearly fewer opportunities than a black muslim growing up in inner Paris. Education, leisure, culture, jobs / uneployment, violence : these factors depend on where you live. Equality, which is a corner stone of our politic system is an empty word in real life. Of course color matters, (and French people can be extremly racists like many other nation) but mostly because we do not manage deal correctly with immigration : most of the incoming muslims end up in our ghettos where there are few standard cursus available : crime, sport, jihad, small jobs, unemployment, quitting. Those who quit and have the chance / courage to integrate a better place can have better opportunities. In France we can be very xenophobic but we know the value of intelligence and courage too.
4
Yes, pretend to know France from ... Belmont, MA.
The three gunmen of the week all had a job. Amedy Coulibaly even met president Sarkozy during an employment forum.
The three gunmen of the week all had a job. Amedy Coulibaly even met president Sarkozy during an employment forum.
3
Quite right (and the elephant is visible from inner France too, not only Belmont, Mass.)
"If there is a lesson to learn ..... it is that radical Islam can only be fought with the support of moderate Islam."
I don't think that's the lesson although I would love for the overwhelmingly peaceful Muslins to finally take a public stand on this and take action in their own communities.
After all, many Germans weren't Nazi's and while it would have spared the world many millions less dead if Nazism has been handled internally, the world was able to come together and combat the menace. Just as in the 1930's we haven't quite come to grips with who the enemy is.
I don't think that's the lesson although I would love for the overwhelmingly peaceful Muslins to finally take a public stand on this and take action in their own communities.
After all, many Germans weren't Nazi's and while it would have spared the world many millions less dead if Nazism has been handled internally, the world was able to come together and combat the menace. Just as in the 1930's we haven't quite come to grips with who the enemy is.
17
The French perception of "laïcité" depends upon who you are in French society. The law, as the author writes, does require that yarmulkes and head scarves may not be worn in public. However, the law does *not* forbid that crucifixes or crosses not be worn in public. To some, this looks like an uneven playing field. French society and the French language (Roman Catholics "worship" in a "church", while Protestants "attend cult" in a "temple") are not as neutral as many of the traditional French believe. This in no way excuses anything that happened this week, or any other assaults against others... it means that the majority of people in France need to be more aware of their invisible (to them) privilege.
7
Untrue. Visible crosses are not allowed.
2
There is no law that says Jews cannot wear yamilkes in public. Islamic women can wear headscarves in public. It is just public schools where this is not acceptable. Plus, Jewish kids can wear a Star of David around their neck. So, you are not understanding the law.
4
You are incorrect and need to get the facts. These laws do not forbid religious clothing in public for adults. What you are referring to is for minors in public schools and it specifically DOES include crosses and other christian symbols. The law for adults specifically forbids in public items that hide the face and are linked to coverings that are cultural in nature - full face and body coverings of women are not specifically prohibited by the Koran and more properly linked to histories of control and persecution of women in particular regions of the world - and specifically keep women from being able to have a "public face" in French society. Also, there were a number of specific cases of women being forced to wear full body coverings or veils by family members in which the young women refused or struggled against this, and were killed or attacked, even burned alive. This was an additional impetus for these laws. I would recommend you or any New York Times readers to investigate this topic in detail and get the facts right.
1
There is no assault on French identity. Hebdo was a racist, and his killers are killers. Maybe you should have had the courage to stop Hebdo abusing and insulting a defenseless and downtrodden people. The French are always whining, while benefiting from hundreds of years of colonial rapine. Cry for their victims, not for their fellow abusive humans.
3
Charlie Hebdo skewered Christians, Jews, atheists, and everyone else. I am a devout Christian and believe that it is the journal's right to cause me pain.
31
What gives you the impression that Charlie Hebdo was a racist publication? They were an equal-opportunity satirical magazine that mocked every religion and every political figure.
40
Freedom of speech does not mean that we freely hurt people's feelings, keep poking sensitive issues of poor, struggling people & create atmosphere of mocking, hate & killing. Journalism is a noble job, they should and they must strive, to use their pens to create a peaceful and progressive world for all.
3
"...It does not make us popular in the Arab world, but somehow it works at home:..."
Really ?
The so-called "laicite" laws did make sense at the begin of 20th century when catholic church had a disproportionate influence on all French institutions, but now it is diverted against Muslims (and Muslims only) who act as scapegoats for a deficient and idealized social system. They have absolutely no saying nor any power in any political or cultural sphere (even in La Traviata show), there is not even a "deputé" who can claim he is a Muslim despite 6 millions of them in the country. It looks to me as if some were more equal than others...
As far as the veil is concerned, it is indeed France which can claim that it must exclude veiled girls from school...to better educate them. What a victory for education !
This of course does not mean that caricatures or blasphemy should be forbidden. To take pride of them is another matter.
Really ?
The so-called "laicite" laws did make sense at the begin of 20th century when catholic church had a disproportionate influence on all French institutions, but now it is diverted against Muslims (and Muslims only) who act as scapegoats for a deficient and idealized social system. They have absolutely no saying nor any power in any political or cultural sphere (even in La Traviata show), there is not even a "deputé" who can claim he is a Muslim despite 6 millions of them in the country. It looks to me as if some were more equal than others...
As far as the veil is concerned, it is indeed France which can claim that it must exclude veiled girls from school...to better educate them. What a victory for education !
This of course does not mean that caricatures or blasphemy should be forbidden. To take pride of them is another matter.
4
Head scarves seem innocuous enough, as do yamilkes on Jewish boys. But, the French do not want children to stand out as different in a country where French culture is so important. They want the French children of every religious background, to be French First, their family culture, second. That's France.
3
Hi Zorbeck: I think I agree about the dress code laws - somehow it seems that those laws start to turn "laicite" into another religion, with a different requirements - I keep thinking, when are they going to come right out and make them all wear miniskirts, that would be really French, wouldn't it? And tres chic. And maybe the guys could be required to smoke a Gaulois on the school steps, before entering. Can't get more French than that. It's kind of ridiculous.
Also, there is a lot of history of colonialism left out, as well as the current inequality that you mention.
But I don't think the kind of violent commandos who carry machine guns and murder cartoonists care about any of that stuff, I think all they care about is the fantasy of power and the reality of violence. And their kind aren't all Muslims by any means...
Also, there is a lot of history of colonialism left out, as well as the current inequality that you mention.
But I don't think the kind of violent commandos who carry machine guns and murder cartoonists care about any of that stuff, I think all they care about is the fantasy of power and the reality of violence. And their kind aren't all Muslims by any means...
1
I would suggest a national debate over laïcité, the bedrock of the French system creating a wall of separation between church(mosque) and state. All of the myths and realities of this national value should be discussed and strenuously debated, not in a vacuum but with all of the players present for that debate: would-be jihadists, National Front, social elite, left, right, center etc.
If France truly believes in laïcité and there is every reason to believe that the majority do, it should be time for this debate and potentially, national reconciliation.
For Americans, we had to do this with segregation in the 1950's and 60's as the U.S. confronted overt racism. Like America even today, France seems to have a civil rights problem that needs to be addressed as it should have done in 2005 with several nights of riots in many cities.
If France truly believes in laïcité and there is every reason to believe that the majority do, it should be time for this debate and potentially, national reconciliation.
For Americans, we had to do this with segregation in the 1950's and 60's as the U.S. confronted overt racism. Like America even today, France seems to have a civil rights problem that needs to be addressed as it should have done in 2005 with several nights of riots in many cities.
4
Agreed. The only way Radical Islam will be stopped is with enormous effort from Moderate Islam. There is an unanswered question: Does Moderate Islam exist? I believe that argument made by the nut-job Pakistani (Choudary sp?) imam in Briton my be true. He maintains there is no such thing as Moderate Islam. It is Salafism or nothing. He well may be right in the same way, as this paper recently demonstrated to anyone thinking, that there is no such thing as liberal or humanistic Zionism.
6
Moderate or Reform Islam does not really exist in practice. It might exist in the mind of the individual, like not dropping to pray 5 times a day or keeping kosher or Halal or drinking alcohol. But, there needs to be a Reformation in Islam, a refuge for people who enjoy the customs and rituals but want to live more secular lives without feeling like they have betrayed the religion.
1
Does Moderate Islam exist?
Just visit Turkey to see that there are more female students in schools than the male ones. And do not forger to visit Turkish pubs on the Bosphorus.
Just visit Turkey to see that there are more female students in schools than the male ones. And do not forger to visit Turkish pubs on the Bosphorus.
1
Sylvie Kauffmann writes, "If there is a lesson to learn ... it is that radical Islam can only be fought with the support of moderate Islam."
It is not that simple. One does not successfully fight battles predicated on predictable actions out of one's control. The response from the Muslim community will be critical and telling.
A religion is not just its holy writings but the way its practitioners behave. And, sins are sins of omission as well as commission. Even if a religious community does not collectively act in a violent manner, if it allows some members to act violently in the community's name, that community bears a moral responsibility, even if not a legal responsibility.
What is occurring in France is more like the I.R.A. than I.S.I.S., guerrilla warfare, where a small number of practitioners are encouraged by the passivity of a much larger community in which they can operate and disappear.
I hope the Muslim community will step up to the plate, as I would hope all religious communities would step up to the plate, when an element within it acts in such a manner. Unfortunately, I see precious few examples of any religion collectively and meaningfully denouncing its own extremists. Thus, as one who views Islam from an essentially egalitarian point of view, I am not hopeful in this case. Therefore, one has to be prepared to fight the battle in other ways, hopefully not granting them a victory by abandoning those very values which are the impetus for their attacks.
It is not that simple. One does not successfully fight battles predicated on predictable actions out of one's control. The response from the Muslim community will be critical and telling.
A religion is not just its holy writings but the way its practitioners behave. And, sins are sins of omission as well as commission. Even if a religious community does not collectively act in a violent manner, if it allows some members to act violently in the community's name, that community bears a moral responsibility, even if not a legal responsibility.
What is occurring in France is more like the I.R.A. than I.S.I.S., guerrilla warfare, where a small number of practitioners are encouraged by the passivity of a much larger community in which they can operate and disappear.
I hope the Muslim community will step up to the plate, as I would hope all religious communities would step up to the plate, when an element within it acts in such a manner. Unfortunately, I see precious few examples of any religion collectively and meaningfully denouncing its own extremists. Thus, as one who views Islam from an essentially egalitarian point of view, I am not hopeful in this case. Therefore, one has to be prepared to fight the battle in other ways, hopefully not granting them a victory by abandoning those very values which are the impetus for their attacks.
13
The leader of the so-called "terrorist group" Hezbollah has condemned the Paris attacks saying that these extremists have done far more harm to Islam than the cartoons.
6
The entire Arab League has condemned the attacks in Paris.
2
The problem is every tribe, religion, culture, gender wants to be at the center of the society, and that just doesn't work, because no matter how you feel, someone else believes abortion is murdering a potential human being, yet it is the law in America. The same can be said about offending prophets, Christianity, the Catholic Church, Mormons, Jews, gays, etc. Everyone is offended by others beliefs about them or lack of beliefs. I am getting to the point where I think it would be better to do away with all holidays and days on the calendar for any religion or group. Do we really need special days as people can do and believe what they want, but are we really that infantile that everyone needs their own special day? Will it come to needing a special Black Transgender Day or a day for White Men over the age of 65?
8
Kauffmann's article ignores certain unpalatable aspects of the French love of "liberty". It ignores the reasons why women in France are not allowed to wear the hijab in public, whereas other religious symbols are permitted. Freedom of expression is OK when slandering Islam, but not when promoting it. It ignores the constant attempts by the French government to censor and repress hip-hop artists. It ignores the fact that the assailants were also French citizens and part of French identity every bit as much as she is. It ignores the widespread and ongoing discrimination against Muslims in France. Finally, it ignores the whole sorry history of French colonialism in north Africa, a history the French tried to whitewash ten years ago by passing a law instructing French schoolteachers to only portray the positive aspects of the colonial legacy.
The assault on Charlie Hebdo was a vicious assault by a bunch of deranged criminals, but Islamic fundamentalism draws much of its strength from a perception of the West as hypocritical. Until that is addressed, something Kauffmann does not do at all, I'm afraid this won't be the last such incident.
The assault on Charlie Hebdo was a vicious assault by a bunch of deranged criminals, but Islamic fundamentalism draws much of its strength from a perception of the West as hypocritical. Until that is addressed, something Kauffmann does not do at all, I'm afraid this won't be the last such incident.
8
No, you're not allowed to wear a large crucifix either. That also violates the dictates of laicite.
1
I'm pretty sure you are wrong when you say Muslim women cannot wear a head scarf in public. This is only the rule in public schools, not on the street and especially among adults/ France did ban the burka, which is a good thing.
2
You are totally right : this is the way i perceive my own country. But do not forget that also every day, in most of the french newspapers all what you describe is spotted and denouced. This the french paradox : We can have a very accurate analysis of our major problems while we seem strictly unable to fix them. We are freaks...
1
From what I have read this is incorrect. According the experts I have heard on this subject this attack was directed at the cartoonists very specifically not French society in general. Their believe was that this paper was attacking them directly and an enemy. Freedom of expression was a side issue. Religious fanatics believe they serve a larger purpose than liberal freedoms. Ultimately it makes no difference since their beliefs preclude our rights and therefore these fanatics must be stopped or hunted down when they try to use force to impose their beliefs..
3
The attackers were French. They grew up in France. They knew full well what their target represented. They didn't leave the scene screaming they'd killed specific people. They left (if reports are to be believed) screaming they had killed the magazine. They understood the symbolic impact of their decision.
2
YES the Charlie Hebdo attack was a horrible crime and inexcusable, but ....
NO, the criminals were not attacking "our freedom of expression," and
NO, the criminals were not "an attacking on our so-called way of life".
In my view the Paris attack WAS simply blow-back. …… a criminal violent response to perceived injustices against Muslims in both the Middle East and in France. The leader of the attack was previously convicted of complicity in terrorism and when asked in court why he did what he did, his answer was that he was motivated by the Abu Ghraib torture and abuse he saw on television. This helped make him a prime candidate for recruitment into the camp of the violent extremists.
Charlie Hebdo was likely just one of many possible targets, unfortunately an all too obvious one, and a target that could combine general blow-back with retribution for what the extremists considered unacceptable blasphemy.
When will we take our heads out of the sand and get serious about stopping the barbarity!! The laws of physics state that for every action there is a reaction. We can no longer avoid the elephant in the room. We must objectively find answers to the question “why?” ......why the growth of Islamic extremism?
NO, the criminals were not attacking "our freedom of expression," and
NO, the criminals were not "an attacking on our so-called way of life".
In my view the Paris attack WAS simply blow-back. …… a criminal violent response to perceived injustices against Muslims in both the Middle East and in France. The leader of the attack was previously convicted of complicity in terrorism and when asked in court why he did what he did, his answer was that he was motivated by the Abu Ghraib torture and abuse he saw on television. This helped make him a prime candidate for recruitment into the camp of the violent extremists.
Charlie Hebdo was likely just one of many possible targets, unfortunately an all too obvious one, and a target that could combine general blow-back with retribution for what the extremists considered unacceptable blasphemy.
When will we take our heads out of the sand and get serious about stopping the barbarity!! The laws of physics state that for every action there is a reaction. We can no longer avoid the elephant in the room. We must objectively find answers to the question “why?” ......why the growth of Islamic extremism?
8
With all due respect, France is not a country of Secularism. In secularism you don not ban practice of religion in any shape or form as long as it does infringe upon anyone eases' rights. Banning of veil or asking someone to leave Opera house are not Secular values-if anything these are signs of intolerance. Charlie Hebdo has every right to publish what they want, terrorists has no right to take away precious lives no matter what the reason, but Charlie Hebdo was not a symbol of freedom-Charlie Hebdo was symbol of intolerance exhibited by French society at large. Charlie Hebdo has every right to publish the Cartoons, but what was the value in insulting the beaten down and trodden Muslim minority in France except show intolerance towards their religion and culture. French society cannot has both ways. As the things stand now, France is an intolerant Society and current horrendous incidence is an other indication of this intolerance.
Following paragraph by David Brooks is worth reading;
"Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home."
Following paragraph by David Brooks is worth reading;
"Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home."
5
You don't know what you're talking about. France has a very specific history when it comes to "laicite" and has every right to defend that hard-won principle.
3
keep in mind that in France, a blasphemy is not prohibited. This is a laic country.
May be this is not your choice for a country but this is the choice of French people.
And I will continue to laught with the Charlie Hebdo cartoons for a while.
May be this is not your choice for a country but this is the choice of French people.
And I will continue to laught with the Charlie Hebdo cartoons for a while.
3
"France is an intolerant Society.."
Remember the widest avenue in the world, Champ-Elisees, was flooded by protesters against gay marriage last year! Vive la Liberte!
Remember the widest avenue in the world, Champ-Elisees, was flooded by protesters against gay marriage last year! Vive la Liberte!
Andres Serrano creates "Piss Christ" and Christians around the world kill no one. I shudder to think what might have happened if Serrano had substituted The Koran for The Crucifix. Yes, we must be careful not to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few (just as we don't judge all Christians by the actions of Eric Rudolph or Scott Roeder). But radical Islam has an ideaology and seems to have a strategy, along with a political wing that seeks to hold territory and govern. Radical Islamists also seem to be engaging in violence at a growing and alarming rate. I, too, await an overt and constant expression of sanction against Radical Islamists from Muslim leaders and all Muslims of goodwill throughout the world.
21
Neither Muslims nor Christians think and act as a body. Nor should they. Christians ignore things like "Piss Christ" for a wide variety of reasons, only one of which is principled broadmindedness. Another, much more likely, reason is simple focus on the day-to-day business of life. Many Americans, prompted by the media, remain hypersensitive to atrocities committed by those who profess radical Islam. That is the legacy of 9/11. However, it does not change the fact that the matter of militant religion remains irrelevant to the day-to-day business of most everyone's lives. And that is as it should be.
Freedom of speech must at all times be protected and expanded to all societies. However, with every right there is a corresponding responsibility. Just because you CAN say something does not mean that you MUST say it. The reality is that the Charlie Hebdo staff knew of their rights, but apparently were oblivious to the severity of the consequences of their actions. Or maybe they did or just didn't care. If so, I applaud them for putting their lives on the line for free speech. But I can't applaud them for ignoring common sense, reality of today's world, and the responsibility that comes with that right.
Free speech is great. But if I handle it responsibly I know not to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and not expect to be trampled over.
Free speech is great. But if I handle it responsibly I know not to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and not expect to be trampled over.
3
Yelling "FIRE " in a crowded theatre is not free speech.
For the love of G-d people, get your terms right.
The newspaper hit all religions, not just Islam.
I didn't see the Pope go on a rampage.
For the love of G-d people, get your terms right.
The newspaper hit all religions, not just Islam.
I didn't see the Pope go on a rampage.
16
It's not the same as yelling fire. It's the same as people who don't like Comedy Central shooting the creators of South Park.
2
The editor-in-chief had 24/7 police protection. He knew the seriousness of his actions far better than you or anyone else. He and his colleagues did what they did because they thought it had to be done. They chose to go on and risk their lives before they thought his newspaper had an important role to play. And it did. And does. And will. Why do think people are demonstrating en masse in France even though the print run of Charlie Hebdo was only 50,000? If you bothered to research Charlie Hebdo a little bit, you would see they thought they had a duty to do what they did, even if they also did it with humor.
1
Readers who want to paint all Muslims with the same brush, take note:
The leader of the Islamist so-called "terrorist group" Hezbollah has condemned the Paris attacks saying that these extremists have done far more harm to Islam than the cartoons.
The leader of the Islamist so-called "terrorist group" Hezbollah has condemned the Paris attacks saying that these extremists have done far more harm to Islam than the cartoons.
17
There is another thing time to time referring these interesting but awkward condemnations, like Al Qaeda condemned the ISIS.
Bottom line all these organizations are not belong to Moderate Muslim groups. That is one of the crucial mistake Western nations do all ways. Moderate Muslims need desperate help in their respective nations, this can be succeeded only deep analysis of groups philosophy and policy.
We all know that these people are not martyrs, nor jihadists, they are simple murderers. We all know that they did wrong.
But how can we eliminate them, and eventually erase them.
Forget Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS, etc. Try to find the Moderate Muslim, reach out and carry their concerns in their nations what kind of Islamic radical threat they are facing.
Bottom line all these organizations are not belong to Moderate Muslim groups. That is one of the crucial mistake Western nations do all ways. Moderate Muslims need desperate help in their respective nations, this can be succeeded only deep analysis of groups philosophy and policy.
We all know that these people are not martyrs, nor jihadists, they are simple murderers. We all know that they did wrong.
But how can we eliminate them, and eventually erase them.
Forget Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS, etc. Try to find the Moderate Muslim, reach out and carry their concerns in their nations what kind of Islamic radical threat they are facing.
3
Greg, did you read his statement. He didn't. He never referenced Paris or France even once. His statement could easily have been directed at ISIS since he also added "beheadings".
In any event, their actions speak much louder than any nuanced statement.
In any event, their actions speak much louder than any nuanced statement.
6
Ben R
I have read ""The behavior of the takfiri [jihadi] groups that claim to follow Islam have distorted Islam, the Quran and the Muslim nation more than Islam's enemies ... who insulted the prophet in films ... or drew cartoons of the prophet,"
Since the statement is from today, I'd say that is a direct reference to the Paris attacks.
I have read ""The behavior of the takfiri [jihadi] groups that claim to follow Islam have distorted Islam, the Quran and the Muslim nation more than Islam's enemies ... who insulted the prophet in films ... or drew cartoons of the prophet,"
Since the statement is from today, I'd say that is a direct reference to the Paris attacks.
1
Will someone please explain to me why Islam is called a religion of peace, when it is clear that Mohammed himself, and his followers killed many people who refused to accept him. This is in Islamic 'history'. Please don't compare Islam to Christianity. Jesus himself did not kill anyone. But in Islam's case, the very founder was intolerant of others and killed those who refused to follow him.
38
Shirley, If you study your history, you'll discover that Christians, in many instances, were not devoid of sin.
5
Your comment clearly shows that ignorance is not bliss. You apparently do not know such "history" as you put it. You ignore or have not studied The Crusades or The Inquisition. If so, you would not throw out such a statement.
7
Did you not bother to read my comment. I am not talking of times after the death of Jesus or Mohammed, but of the times during which they lived. One was a killer and one wasn't.
2
If Charlie Hebdo had described Islam and Moslems as evil, then the government should have banned it as hate speech. If it was merely making people question accepted assumptions by poking fun at them with exaggerated caricatures, then it was of great value to society. If we ban everyone who disagrees with our outlook, then we’ll miss many opportunities to look at ourselves critically, and, if we feel it’s necessary, to try to change for the better.
4
Have you seen the cartoons? They're not hate speech; they're funny. It's incredible to think that anyone could have thought to kill the creators of a satirical magazine, which mocked not just Islam but every other religion.
I suggest everyone watch this NYT video to see the people who were killed, and decide for himself/herself whether there was anything remotely hateful about them:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/charlie-hebdo-before-the-massa...®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region
I suggest everyone watch this NYT video to see the people who were killed, and decide for himself/herself whether there was anything remotely hateful about them:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/charlie-hebdo-before-the-massa...®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region
11
Ideology is the essence of personality in individuals; and of culture in peoples. Theology-ideologies are based on mythic god stories but they also inform personalities and cultures.
Darwin: individual development (life cycle) mimics that of the species and its cultures--infant-child-adolescent-mature adult-middle-old age.
Children are gullible dependents; adolescents are know it all, dogmatic believers, falling for good stories regardless of fact or fiction; maturity begins with self criticism.
Cultures too "grow up". Cultural maturity begins with Philosophy, Science, Academia and the very distinction between logos and mythos; search and re-search as paths to progress--better ideas, ideologies, value systems, cultures and individuals--even reality itself.
"Greco-Roman theology/mythology had its dogmatic barbaric stages--killing logical critics like Socrates and mythic rivals like Christians (positing extra-gods "super-stitions").
Christianity then did to critics and rivals what Romans did to them--crusades, inquisitions and ethnic/theological/mythical cleansings. What Babylonians did to Jews a millennium before that.
Getting freedom of religion into the US Bill of Rights was not easy. We can be grateful for Deism among the Fathers of Confederation.
Now (adolescent) Islamists are doing to logical critics and rivals what Christianity did to Islam.
Flushing religion is not a bad idea; even with growing pains. Maturity and civilization depend on it--and patience too.
Darwin: individual development (life cycle) mimics that of the species and its cultures--infant-child-adolescent-mature adult-middle-old age.
Children are gullible dependents; adolescents are know it all, dogmatic believers, falling for good stories regardless of fact or fiction; maturity begins with self criticism.
Cultures too "grow up". Cultural maturity begins with Philosophy, Science, Academia and the very distinction between logos and mythos; search and re-search as paths to progress--better ideas, ideologies, value systems, cultures and individuals--even reality itself.
"Greco-Roman theology/mythology had its dogmatic barbaric stages--killing logical critics like Socrates and mythic rivals like Christians (positing extra-gods "super-stitions").
Christianity then did to critics and rivals what Romans did to them--crusades, inquisitions and ethnic/theological/mythical cleansings. What Babylonians did to Jews a millennium before that.
Getting freedom of religion into the US Bill of Rights was not easy. We can be grateful for Deism among the Fathers of Confederation.
Now (adolescent) Islamists are doing to logical critics and rivals what Christianity did to Islam.
Flushing religion is not a bad idea; even with growing pains. Maturity and civilization depend on it--and patience too.
3
"Radical Islam can only be fought with the support of moderate Islam."
Agreed. But sadly Moderate Islam is silent on this issue and has proven more driven to protest and outrage by slights and offenses, real and imagined, perpetrated on them by non-Muslims than atrocities committed in the name of their religion on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Their silence on these issues amounts to tacit approval of violence as a tactic.
Case in point - there are frequent demonstrations in the Islamic world against Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. But, when ISIS rampages across Iraq and Syria - killing thousands of other Muslims, women and children, in the most gruesome manner, supposedly hijacking the teachings of Islam, there is… silence. No global protests demanding their governments do something, no overt moral outrage. Nothing.
When comics are published with the image of the Prophet in Europe, there are world-wide demonstrations across the Islamic world; people are outraged, riots brake out; flags are burned. When those same cartoonists are murdered the response of the global Islamic community is… silence.
This remarkable reluctance of moderate Islam to enthusiastically disown violence as a means of settling religious grudges, and acknowledge the rights of women, minorities, and the freedom of speech, provides an all clear sign for the extremists to act in the manner in which they do. There may be more moderates, but there are no moderate voices to drown them out.
Agreed. But sadly Moderate Islam is silent on this issue and has proven more driven to protest and outrage by slights and offenses, real and imagined, perpetrated on them by non-Muslims than atrocities committed in the name of their religion on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Their silence on these issues amounts to tacit approval of violence as a tactic.
Case in point - there are frequent demonstrations in the Islamic world against Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. But, when ISIS rampages across Iraq and Syria - killing thousands of other Muslims, women and children, in the most gruesome manner, supposedly hijacking the teachings of Islam, there is… silence. No global protests demanding their governments do something, no overt moral outrage. Nothing.
When comics are published with the image of the Prophet in Europe, there are world-wide demonstrations across the Islamic world; people are outraged, riots brake out; flags are burned. When those same cartoonists are murdered the response of the global Islamic community is… silence.
This remarkable reluctance of moderate Islam to enthusiastically disown violence as a means of settling religious grudges, and acknowledge the rights of women, minorities, and the freedom of speech, provides an all clear sign for the extremists to act in the manner in which they do. There may be more moderates, but there are no moderate voices to drown them out.
14
Death does not silence the voice. Killing is certainly not sensible. The world has denounced it. But I am sure, among 1.6 billion of Muslims around the world, modern or radical alike, would never appreciate the kind of vulgarity (Bible, Torah and Quran: All in the toilet) Charlie Hebdo has chosen to insult. It is difficult to keep an eye on every 1.6 billion Muslim. Some of them might be incited to violence to revenge. Undoubtedly, freedom of expression is important. Equally important is accountability. Unfortunately, nobody likes to talk about that.
"Undoubtedly, freedom of expression is important. Equally important is accountability."
With all due respect, I ask the question: Accountability for what? Western freedom of speech sprang 3 centuries ago as a necessary by-product from Europe's religious wars - yes "religious" and "war." They found it was better to talk than to kill (and lampooning is a form of talk, not insult: rather, if you are lampooned, take it in stride and be light of heart, which is what spirituality should effect in us at any rate). You talk as if Shari'a is the operative law in France. No, freedom of speech in this society of enlightened secular humanism trumps any form of Shari'a - where religious law unfortunately equals civil law. This is precisely why freedom of speech is non existent in many countries.
With all due respect, I ask the question: Accountability for what? Western freedom of speech sprang 3 centuries ago as a necessary by-product from Europe's religious wars - yes "religious" and "war." They found it was better to talk than to kill (and lampooning is a form of talk, not insult: rather, if you are lampooned, take it in stride and be light of heart, which is what spirituality should effect in us at any rate). You talk as if Shari'a is the operative law in France. No, freedom of speech in this society of enlightened secular humanism trumps any form of Shari'a - where religious law unfortunately equals civil law. This is precisely why freedom of speech is non existent in many countries.
2
What you cal vulgarity is called satyr. Satyr lets France to the French Revolution, when Charlie Hebdos of this times mocked the clergy, the bourgeoisie, the aristocracy, the court of Versailles, the king and the queen Marie-Antoinette.
Satyr leads France to privileges abortion and the end of the 'tiers-état' society.
Satyr leads France to privileges abortion and the end of the 'tiers-état' society.
1
Who exactly would satirists be accountable to? You? No thanks.
1
Thank you NYT for including the voice of a native to today's op-eds: something that respects the complexities of the event has finally been written in these pages.
To the commentators harping about France's enactment of free speech, please realize that different cultures/nations achieve what is at the heart of this value differently - but make no mistake they do not dilute it!
The legal frame work within which the value of free speech exist in the US is particular to American culture, it is not a moral absolute that descended from the heavens. (And don't forget Ginsberg's, Burroughs' and Lenny Bruce's trials in the 60s; our own legal frame work is relatively recent)
To the commentators harping about France's enactment of free speech, please realize that different cultures/nations achieve what is at the heart of this value differently - but make no mistake they do not dilute it!
The legal frame work within which the value of free speech exist in the US is particular to American culture, it is not a moral absolute that descended from the heavens. (And don't forget Ginsberg's, Burroughs' and Lenny Bruce's trials in the 60s; our own legal frame work is relatively recent)
4
First, on the motivation behind these crimes, please look up UofM Prof Juan Cole and his theory of the tactic of "sharpening the conteidictions".
(roughly, amplify hostility against the French muslim minority=more street cred (power) for the extremists).
This seems like a plausible reality. Adding to the mix there are also: Syria, Gaza/settlements, and the US actions taken since the start of our Iraq debacle.
This title echoes Colin Powell's, "they're against our way of life".
That righteous simplification was our justification for taking the tragic actions we took in response to 9/11.
I hope France can avoid the jingoism and search for a Just response and not fall for their game as we did.
(roughly, amplify hostility against the French muslim minority=more street cred (power) for the extremists).
This seems like a plausible reality. Adding to the mix there are also: Syria, Gaza/settlements, and the US actions taken since the start of our Iraq debacle.
This title echoes Colin Powell's, "they're against our way of life".
That righteous simplification was our justification for taking the tragic actions we took in response to 9/11.
I hope France can avoid the jingoism and search for a Just response and not fall for their game as we did.
1
If one believes that one's religious beliefs are absolutely true, then any kind of contrary beliefs are false and will lead to damnation. So it is the true believer who hates the idea of religious freedom the most, and who will be outraged by any kind of blasphemies. The acceptance of uncertainty about the most heart felt beliefs regarding religious beliefs is the basis of religious tolerance and freedom.
Remember the wars of religion, French people tortured and murdered other French people over religion for over one hundred years after the Protestant Reformation. After that experience very few people in France were convinced that those conflicts were justified nor that religious beliefs were so certainly infallible to justify insisting that everyone must accept them. This experience preceded the Age of Enlightenment and probably was necessary to give it legitimacy. Tolerance for others requires the ability to allow that one's own preferences are not the only good ones.
Remember the wars of religion, French people tortured and murdered other French people over religion for over one hundred years after the Protestant Reformation. After that experience very few people in France were convinced that those conflicts were justified nor that religious beliefs were so certainly infallible to justify insisting that everyone must accept them. This experience preceded the Age of Enlightenment and probably was necessary to give it legitimacy. Tolerance for others requires the ability to allow that one's own preferences are not the only good ones.
7
We live in an age of such hyperbole, false equivalency and political correctness, that we no longer can see the forest for the trees.
Let’s keep this simple:
If there were radical Catholic terrorist acts, on the same scale and frequency as we have seen by Islamists, the Vatican would be swarmed with hundreds of thousands of faithful opposed to such evil, demonstrating for peace, led by the Pope, no doubt.
If there were radical Buddhist terrorist acts, on the same scale and frequency, Tibet would yield similar demonstrations, led by the Dalai Lama, no doubt.
If there were radical Jewish terrorists acts, on the same scale and frequency, Jerusalem would yield similar demonstrations, led by the chief rabbis of Israel, no doubt.
I think you could make the same case for just about any religion.
The silence in Mecca and Medina, during and since 9/11, has been deafening.
I think that’s all one needs to know, without any obfuscating commentary or politically correct misguidance.
Enough ….. the West has to take the gloves off, it’s now a battle for cultural supremacy, and I don’t want my American great granddaughters to be wearing burkas, do you ?
Let’s keep this simple:
If there were radical Catholic terrorist acts, on the same scale and frequency as we have seen by Islamists, the Vatican would be swarmed with hundreds of thousands of faithful opposed to such evil, demonstrating for peace, led by the Pope, no doubt.
If there were radical Buddhist terrorist acts, on the same scale and frequency, Tibet would yield similar demonstrations, led by the Dalai Lama, no doubt.
If there were radical Jewish terrorists acts, on the same scale and frequency, Jerusalem would yield similar demonstrations, led by the chief rabbis of Israel, no doubt.
I think you could make the same case for just about any religion.
The silence in Mecca and Medina, during and since 9/11, has been deafening.
I think that’s all one needs to know, without any obfuscating commentary or politically correct misguidance.
Enough ….. the West has to take the gloves off, it’s now a battle for cultural supremacy, and I don’t want my American great granddaughters to be wearing burkas, do you ?
23
Steve, you may (or may not) be interested to know that the leader of the Islamist so-called "terrorist group" Hezbollah has condemned the Paris attacks, saying that these extremists have done far more harm to Islam than the cartoons.
6
Greg, in the same statment, he also said to ISIS that the beheadings are a bad way to serve islam. That is just politics.
1
"If there were radical Buddhist terrorist acts, on the same scale and frequency"
There have been radical Buddhist terrorist acts, and no such demonstrations. I refer to the atrocities by Buddhist militants against the Rohingya in Burma.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/18/buddhist-monk-spreads-hatre...
There have been radical Buddhist terrorist acts, and no such demonstrations. I refer to the atrocities by Buddhist militants against the Rohingya in Burma.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/18/buddhist-monk-spreads-hatre...
There is a fundamental lack of understanding of the point of view of Shari'a law from the perspective of many who practice Islam. According to the writings of Bernard Lewis, a highly respected author and expert on Islam, in traditional Islamic society, there is no distinction between religious (i.e., Shari'a) and secular law. So if those interpreting the Quran believe that certain speech toward the Prophet, according to Shari'a, is a capital offense, they are fulfilling their religious duty by carrying out the sentence.
I am not remotely suggesting that I agree with or support the perspective of harsh enforcement of Shari'a law (or any other overly-literal and fundamentalist interpretation of any religious law). Rather, I urge those who contemplate publishing material describing the precepts of Islam regarded as sacred, fully understand the risks they are undertaking to exercise their freedom of speech.
When the Danish paper published cartoons about the Prophet that were deemed to violate Shari'a law, upwards of 50 people were killed in the process. When Salman Rushdie published a book that was deemed to violate Shari'a law, a fatwa was issued against him in the form of a death sentence. He had to hide for many years as a result.
What is free speech in one part of the world is clearly being deemed a violation of fundamental religious scruples (i.e., Shari'a law) in other parts of the world. If one sends information out over the internet, BEWARE!
I am not remotely suggesting that I agree with or support the perspective of harsh enforcement of Shari'a law (or any other overly-literal and fundamentalist interpretation of any religious law). Rather, I urge those who contemplate publishing material describing the precepts of Islam regarded as sacred, fully understand the risks they are undertaking to exercise their freedom of speech.
When the Danish paper published cartoons about the Prophet that were deemed to violate Shari'a law, upwards of 50 people were killed in the process. When Salman Rushdie published a book that was deemed to violate Shari'a law, a fatwa was issued against him in the form of a death sentence. He had to hide for many years as a result.
What is free speech in one part of the world is clearly being deemed a violation of fundamental religious scruples (i.e., Shari'a law) in other parts of the world. If one sends information out over the internet, BEWARE!
3
No religious group has the right to force anyone in the Western counties to swallow their point of view. The only ones currently murdering folks for living their liberty seem to be radical Islam.
16
“When John Wilkes Booth showed up at Ford’s Theatre, was he a ‘stakeholder’?” (Eric Dezenhall, Glass Jaw, p. 130)
2
"So what should we do, torn between “moderate Islam” and “radical Islam”? How should we deal with Islam?"Answer: Perhaps the concept of Eurabia should be reconsidered post haste and without further ado.
1
I love France and am like anyone should be shocked by the Hebdo terrorism. I am a big francophile. It is my favorite culture in the world. But I think it is an obvious hypocrisy that the majority in France seems united in the view that it is OK to publish satirical and clearly offensive cartoons about Islam (and anything else), and yet it is illegal to wear a scarf or a yarmulke to public buildings and performances. Letting people express their religious beliefs through their dress in no way challenges the freedom of religion or the freedom to not be religious. It is appalling that France continues this insulting policy of harassing people who choose to dress according to their religion. Withdrawing those laws would help ease the divide Europe and France are suffering from.
7
That's why you will never be able to understand about France and the sense we give to the word secularism from your continent. We have known many religious wars (Croisades, Saint-Barthélémy), we had gone into wars for Christianity, since the Revolution, the beggining of the 20th century and the may 68 events we went into an interior war against Christianity, and we have to deal with many religious communities, according to the inheritage judaic-christian times let to us. We have the biggest jewish and muslim communities in Europe, that ones who fight in Israel and Palestine. We have known the 'Affaire Dreyfus'. We have known the 'Baby Loup' case.
Our history made us to think that religion should remain a personal belief. That's why the veil, the kippa and the crucifix are banned from our public schools (there are still private schools which have their own rules for jews, christians and muslims).
In the US, everybody can basically do whatever they want. That's why you have your black quarters, your latino quarters, your white suburbs. That's why preachers can go on television to say that gay people should burn in hell. That is not our model of integration. You chose the 'each for his one, be yourself and #Ferguson', we chose the 'all together, keep some things private and even Islam should deal with now since as all others religions have'.
Our history made us to think that religion should remain a personal belief. That's why the veil, the kippa and the crucifix are banned from our public schools (there are still private schools which have their own rules for jews, christians and muslims).
In the US, everybody can basically do whatever they want. That's why you have your black quarters, your latino quarters, your white suburbs. That's why preachers can go on television to say that gay people should burn in hell. That is not our model of integration. You chose the 'each for his one, be yourself and #Ferguson', we chose the 'all together, keep some things private and even Islam should deal with now since as all others religions have'.
1
I can trivially avoid Charlie Hebdo but I cannot avoid public buildings. And the police tend not to shoot when seeing a niquab. You're comparing apples and toffees.
Actually the ban on religious symbols in schools works quite well I hear since it voids any group pressure to wear these symbols. It also avoids placing people in a box at first sight.
Actually the ban on religious symbols in schools works quite well I hear since it voids any group pressure to wear these symbols. It also avoids placing people in a box at first sight.
1
In an ideal world, people would leave off believing in their stupid religions, and they are all stupid to varying degrees, and that would at least cut down on some of the fanaticism that fuels much of the violence in the world. But this is not an ideal world, and the fear of death and dying along with the fear of living in an indifferent universe will keep people religious for a long time. I can live with that, but what is intolerable to me and should be intolerable to everyone is that no one has a right to do harm to anyone else because of some perceived offense to one's beliefs. I am not obligated to respect what another believes and others are not obligated to respect what I believe, but everyone is obligated to leave other people alone. I'm an atheist, and you may laugh at me as much as you like. You may even publish cartoons that mock atheism in irreverent and even tasteless ways. That is your right. I do not have a right to silence you or take any action to do you harm. I someone doesn't like what another thinks of their beliefs, that's too bad. Mind you own business and don't purchase publications that contain views that upset you. Above all, keep you hands off others.
14
Sylvie, thanks for your wise, non-partisan words. But I think it's somewhat simpler. You don't need to have a long national conversation about how Muslims can or cannot 'integrate' within France - you've been having it, not always conclusively, for several decades - since the late 1960s,, when it became apparent how many North Africans had come to France.
You describe very well French secularism - what you don't say is that French secularism should deliver on its promises.Can you really say the founding values of french republicanism are available to all French citizens, even Muslims? It's fashionable to say that France has many non-political Muslims. But would you say that they are content? Do they really feel French? France knows about grand terrorist acts. My sense, though, is that French culture has been less successful when it comes to normality. France is a big (by European standards) rich and successful country. It should be great to be French when you are North African and Muslim, but, face it, it isn't. The opportunistic, shallow-sounding Houellbecq book is a symptom of something gone badly wrong. Why can anyone pass off the idea of a French Muslim president as a contemporary salon joke?
You describe very well French secularism - what you don't say is that French secularism should deliver on its promises.Can you really say the founding values of french republicanism are available to all French citizens, even Muslims? It's fashionable to say that France has many non-political Muslims. But would you say that they are content? Do they really feel French? France knows about grand terrorist acts. My sense, though, is that French culture has been less successful when it comes to normality. France is a big (by European standards) rich and successful country. It should be great to be French when you are North African and Muslim, but, face it, it isn't. The opportunistic, shallow-sounding Houellbecq book is a symptom of something gone badly wrong. Why can anyone pass off the idea of a French Muslim president as a contemporary salon joke?
4
There are always a minority people who REFUSE to be integrated. The UK, Germany, Belgium, every countries know that. Even richer and healthier small countries like Swiss or Sweden, where one can think it's not that difficult to maintain peace, have their minority if extremists.
"...a rational national conversation about integrating Islam into our core values."
Is there an example anywhere on earth where this has been done? The only was is to make Islam your core value - it knows no other way of integration. There is no debate and dialog in Islam. Just this week in the news in Pakistan - a mentally unstable man was arrested and jailed for claiming that he was the prophet Mohammed! He did his time and was released, whereupon the public at large set upon him and stoned him to death. Earlier, a respected Pakistani politician was assassinated by his own personal bodyguard for merely suggesting that a Christian woman arrested on a blasphemy charge should be released. His assassin showed up in court, and was showered with rose petals by - guess who - the lawyers!!!! In the spirit of Charlie Hebdo, there is a brave young fellow who is protesting the Peshawar massacre of schoolchildren outside one of Pakistan's most nefarious mosques that preach hatred and violence. In ongoing developments, he is being described in various quarters as an Ahmadiya Muslim, because that now means he is a kaffir Muslim (if you can make sense out of that one!) and therefore eligible to be killed by the devout. Frantic efforts are on to spread the word that he is not Ahmadiya, not because there is anything wrong with that, but to prevent tragedy. This is rational dialog with Islam for you. The credit for "Your are with us or against us" really goes to Islam, not dear old Bush.
Is there an example anywhere on earth where this has been done? The only was is to make Islam your core value - it knows no other way of integration. There is no debate and dialog in Islam. Just this week in the news in Pakistan - a mentally unstable man was arrested and jailed for claiming that he was the prophet Mohammed! He did his time and was released, whereupon the public at large set upon him and stoned him to death. Earlier, a respected Pakistani politician was assassinated by his own personal bodyguard for merely suggesting that a Christian woman arrested on a blasphemy charge should be released. His assassin showed up in court, and was showered with rose petals by - guess who - the lawyers!!!! In the spirit of Charlie Hebdo, there is a brave young fellow who is protesting the Peshawar massacre of schoolchildren outside one of Pakistan's most nefarious mosques that preach hatred and violence. In ongoing developments, he is being described in various quarters as an Ahmadiya Muslim, because that now means he is a kaffir Muslim (if you can make sense out of that one!) and therefore eligible to be killed by the devout. Frantic efforts are on to spread the word that he is not Ahmadiya, not because there is anything wrong with that, but to prevent tragedy. This is rational dialog with Islam for you. The credit for "Your are with us or against us" really goes to Islam, not dear old Bush.
28
The drama is over. Three deranged arab descendent people associated with the Charlie Hebdo assassination episode were killed by French security forces.
American media made this a world war III clash of civilization event. It was not. Yes, there is a war going on between the US/allies including France and islamic militant groups since the first Gulf war in the 90s when American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia.
A Saudi national fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, Usama Bin Ladin, did not like infidel troops occupying muslim holy land and took revenge in 9/11/01.
In Latin America, there is no war going on against muslim terrorism. The only South American country to get involved in this war was Argentina of Carlos Menem in the 90s. He sent a symbolic Argentine war vessel to support US first Gulf war. The blowback was two devastating attacks against Israeli targets in Buenos Aires.
France and other Western European countries face a conundrum. They've colonized and dominated vast areas of todays Northern Africa Maghreb. The muslim population from those countries have increased substantially in Europe. They are the new disfranchised poor living in ghettos of major cities. A fertile ground for muslim militant groups recruitment.
Europe cannot deal with this challenge using US cawboy methods. It requires intelligence and subtlety absent in the US war against terror. France has shown in the last two days how to face the challenge and win.
American media made this a world war III clash of civilization event. It was not. Yes, there is a war going on between the US/allies including France and islamic militant groups since the first Gulf war in the 90s when American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia.
A Saudi national fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, Usama Bin Ladin, did not like infidel troops occupying muslim holy land and took revenge in 9/11/01.
In Latin America, there is no war going on against muslim terrorism. The only South American country to get involved in this war was Argentina of Carlos Menem in the 90s. He sent a symbolic Argentine war vessel to support US first Gulf war. The blowback was two devastating attacks against Israeli targets in Buenos Aires.
France and other Western European countries face a conundrum. They've colonized and dominated vast areas of todays Northern Africa Maghreb. The muslim population from those countries have increased substantially in Europe. They are the new disfranchised poor living in ghettos of major cities. A fertile ground for muslim militant groups recruitment.
Europe cannot deal with this challenge using US cawboy methods. It requires intelligence and subtlety absent in the US war against terror. France has shown in the last two days how to face the challenge and win.
2
If something does not change soon, there will soon be disastrous
outcomes for the Muslims living in Western societies, which would also
be a moral disaster for the countries themselves. The incumbent
citizens simply will not tolerate a group that is so uniquely
identified with violence. Unfortunately, the result could be the
expulsion or, at least, complete marginalization of Muslims in these
countries. We can already see a changing of attitudes,
even among groups not normally associated with the extreme right
wing.
There obviously is no simple solution. It seems to me that the only
path to reconciliation is for the majority of Muslims in western
countries to overtly take a stand in stopping this behavior. The
solution must come from within. The incumbent, mostly white and
Judeo-Christian, power centers do not have the authority or access to
influence the closed Muslim minorities in their countries. Muslims
must start to take actions beyond post-tragedy condemnations. There
needs to be more proactive education and information along with
strident and absolute rejection of Jihadism. This includes the
"outing" of individuals, including family members, of those with
extreme views to the authorities and the public rejection of extreme
public figures such as some Imams.
outcomes for the Muslims living in Western societies, which would also
be a moral disaster for the countries themselves. The incumbent
citizens simply will not tolerate a group that is so uniquely
identified with violence. Unfortunately, the result could be the
expulsion or, at least, complete marginalization of Muslims in these
countries. We can already see a changing of attitudes,
even among groups not normally associated with the extreme right
wing.
There obviously is no simple solution. It seems to me that the only
path to reconciliation is for the majority of Muslims in western
countries to overtly take a stand in stopping this behavior. The
solution must come from within. The incumbent, mostly white and
Judeo-Christian, power centers do not have the authority or access to
influence the closed Muslim minorities in their countries. Muslims
must start to take actions beyond post-tragedy condemnations. There
needs to be more proactive education and information along with
strident and absolute rejection of Jihadism. This includes the
"outing" of individuals, including family members, of those with
extreme views to the authorities and the public rejection of extreme
public figures such as some Imams.
56
Hmm... Have you also proposed the "outing" of white racist hate groups by their families whenever they have committed violent acts? We tend to ignore or tolerate such behaviors among our own group but take a completely different stance when it comes to "Those Other" people.
4
Really? What a sanctimonious prig you are! Western, are you? You support all the killing in the Middle East, started due to a mess up by the French and British after WWI? How about all the killing by your people since 9/11? So, bring it on!!
4
They really can't get it.
Sanctimonious is the right word.
Our neocons play God in the Middle-East and these commenters want to hold the N Africans living in French ghettos responsible for the blowback. Go Figure..
Sanctimonious is the right word.
Our neocons play God in the Middle-East and these commenters want to hold the N Africans living in French ghettos responsible for the blowback. Go Figure..
This is as balanced and admirable a writing as I've seen since the initial murders on Wednesday. Bravo, and I love the notion of Liberté, égalité, fraternité, laïcité. All the religions of the Book have, at different times, fueled a mountain of the dead.
47
By far the most moving tribute to Charb was given by his companion Jeanette Bougrab in an interview on TF1.
http://www.lalibre.be/actu/international/l-emouvant-temoignage-de-la-com...
http://www.lalibre.be/actu/international/l-emouvant-temoignage-de-la-com...
5
That's the wrong link. The right one:
http://videos.tf1.fr/jt-20h/2015/charlie-hebdo-charb-savait-qu-il-allait...
http://videos.tf1.fr/jt-20h/2015/charlie-hebdo-charb-savait-qu-il-allait...
7
I'm waiting....
I'm waiting for Muslims and mosques worldwide to denounce the radicals who committed the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
France has a "big, quiet and nonradicalized Muslim community"? Are most of them showing up in droves to place flowers or writing letters of condolences or denouncement?
I'm waiting....
I'm waiting for Muslims and mosques worldwide to denounce the radicals who committed the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
France has a "big, quiet and nonradicalized Muslim community"? Are most of them showing up in droves to place flowers or writing letters of condolences or denouncement?
I'm waiting....
77
Well, do you know that they are not showing up in droves to place flowers or writing letters of condolences or denouncement?
3
Fortunately, you did not have to wait for long. Today (1.9) the media is full of reports of Muslims denouncing the attacks both in Europe and the U.S., as a quick googling will reveal.
What frightens me about posts such as the one above is that they seem to imply that Muslims do support these kinds of actions, which of course is false. Even in countries where standing up to Islamist extremists puts one's life at risk, we can found numerous examples of people who have spoken out (and far too many instances in which they have been violently silenced).
What frightens me about posts such as the one above is that they seem to imply that Muslims do support these kinds of actions, which of course is false. Even in countries where standing up to Islamist extremists puts one's life at risk, we can found numerous examples of people who have spoken out (and far too many instances in which they have been violently silenced).
8
I believe that the Islamic leaders in France have already done what you say you are "waiting" for.
9
This will happen here unless we stop feeling sorry for Muslims and saying they are misunderstood.
While there may be peaceful Muslims they are overwhelmed by the violent ones and are too afraid to speak out. Many quietly agree with their violent offshoots. The US press is just as cowardly- The NYT is so cowardly that it will not even print the cartoon for fear of offending some muslim. We refuse to call a spade a space when it comes to Muslim terrorists.
We need to stop bring in Muslim refugees from terrorist countries. Insist that muslim refuges stay in their own part of the world and provide money for that. I want to see Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Emirates take some instead of the refugee enablers insisting the West take them. Look at what taking them has done for the west.
I doubt that the NYT will print this comment as it is known for its Islamic sympathies and its left wing desire to find a way to whitewash these terrorist as misunderstood and ill treated by the west. In a sense they are enablers of Islamic terrorism by their refusal to be open about what we are dealing with
While there may be peaceful Muslims they are overwhelmed by the violent ones and are too afraid to speak out. Many quietly agree with their violent offshoots. The US press is just as cowardly- The NYT is so cowardly that it will not even print the cartoon for fear of offending some muslim. We refuse to call a spade a space when it comes to Muslim terrorists.
We need to stop bring in Muslim refugees from terrorist countries. Insist that muslim refuges stay in their own part of the world and provide money for that. I want to see Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Emirates take some instead of the refugee enablers insisting the West take them. Look at what taking them has done for the west.
I doubt that the NYT will print this comment as it is known for its Islamic sympathies and its left wing desire to find a way to whitewash these terrorist as misunderstood and ill treated by the west. In a sense they are enablers of Islamic terrorism by their refusal to be open about what we are dealing with
46
I am not sure it is cowardice, but I understand NYT does not print the cartoon for fear that the safety of its personnel in Muslim countries would be at risk - and I really don't think anyone can say that fear is unjustified.
This raises a question we all need to consider. Why is it that offensive comments about religion are rarely followed by violence except when those comments are about Islam? Isn't the effect of such violent acts to censor comments about Islam, while people are free to attack other religions? If so, should any media outlet go along with this? If NYT can't report the news to its readers for fear of attacks against its personnel in Muslim countries, then it should withdraw its personnel from Muslim countries, shouldn't it?
This raises a question we all need to consider. Why is it that offensive comments about religion are rarely followed by violence except when those comments are about Islam? Isn't the effect of such violent acts to censor comments about Islam, while people are free to attack other religions? If so, should any media outlet go along with this? If NYT can't report the news to its readers for fear of attacks against its personnel in Muslim countries, then it should withdraw its personnel from Muslim countries, shouldn't it?
32
Well, if they will publish pro-Putin propaganda as one of his most famous running dogs around here, I guess they will publish this, too, seeing as we are now all reading it.
What will be VERY interesting is if they print THIS one.
What will be VERY interesting is if they print THIS one.
2
Do we have to define an entire population by the actions of the few?
4
Charb, unfortunately, got his wish: he said he'd "rather die, than live on his knees." Many, many innocent people have died for less. The media has found another fertile area for creating clouds of smoke and reams of print.
6
Better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven. Some English chap wrote that.
2
Charlie Hebdo has a long history in France. It exists since 1960. They do not draw pictures only to annoy people.
2
Well, that's a good article and as a French I totally recognize the France's description in this article. After this event, it will be easy for some stupid people to confound terrorism with muslim. Three people to undermine efforts of all a community.
21
Houston, we have a Google Translate fail…..
1
Well we can keep saying that most muslims are great people and non-violent, which is a true and obvious statement but it accomplishes nothing to solve the root problem. Unfortunately while it may be a minority its a lot more than three people. In reality we are probably talking about thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands if we include those wishing for jihad but not yet participating. Also, this is the beginning, not the end of real problems with radical Islam in Europe. Time to get serious about this and not let it just pass as another news event in the short attention spanned media.
5
Where? I will edit my comment. And I didn't used Google, perhaps I should have.
I'm schocked by the paragraph: "Mohammed Merah targeted Jewish schools and Muslim immigrants who had joined the French Army because they were symbols of our diversity. ...They targeted Charlie Hebdo because it is a symbol of our freedom."
Mrs. Kauffmann, Mohammed Merah killed Jews because they were Jews. That is called antisemitism. Is antisemitic violence not a basic attack on "your freedom"? French Jews are not just 'symbols of diversity'. They are French citizens with a old, long roots in France. They have contributed to all aspects of her culture, economy and politcial life. Prime Ministers Léon Blum and Pierre Mendès-France, among so many others, helped shape your republic of liberty, equality, fraternity.
And no, I'm am not a Jew
Mrs. Kauffmann, Mohammed Merah killed Jews because they were Jews. That is called antisemitism. Is antisemitic violence not a basic attack on "your freedom"? French Jews are not just 'symbols of diversity'. They are French citizens with a old, long roots in France. They have contributed to all aspects of her culture, economy and politcial life. Prime Ministers Léon Blum and Pierre Mendès-France, among so many others, helped shape your republic of liberty, equality, fraternity.
And no, I'm am not a Jew
57
I too was appalled by the sentence about Jewish schools being targeted because they were symbols of diversity. They were targeted because they were Jewish, very specifically, as today too. Jews in Europe have been under physical attack by Muslims for at least the entirety of my adulthood, in which I have NEVER visited a synagogue in Europe without seeing civilian armed guards there. As a child my parents warned us never to speak Hebrew while we traveled in any European city.
It is LONG past time to state the situation as it is: this subset of Muslims are deliberately and specifically targeting Jews, and the countries in which these Jews live are failing them badly.
It is LONG past time to state the situation as it is: this subset of Muslims are deliberately and specifically targeting Jews, and the countries in which these Jews live are failing them badly.
8
Your logic's a bit crooked: if Merah attacked Jews and Muslims, presumably he was not targeting Jews (or enlisting Muslims). Or are you suggesting that Merah thought these Muslims were in fact Jews? It seems more likely that Merah was targeting some wider group, in effect symbols of diversity.
2
No, the Muslim they attacked was a police officer. This is commonplace among Muslim terrorists -- to attack other Muslims they see as collaborating with the enemy. It happens in Gaza, for example, constantly. There is no contradiction with what I said previously.
"So in order to try to keep everybody reasonably happy together, we have promoted secularism, giving way to a new motto: Liberté, égalité, fraternité, laïcité."
I am a great admirer of Mme Kauffmann, but have to query her point here: her "keeping everybody reasonably happy" comes at the expense of personal liberty. As a non-believer, I personally think the wearing of religious symbols is ludicrous, but why is this the business of the state to regulate. Similarly, as a secular Jew, I think Holocaust denial is vile beyond belief (one of its foremost practitioners was Robert Faurrisson who was an academic in France ), but criminalizing it, as was done in France, is an attack on liberty of expression.
In both these examples, it seems to me that "llberte" takes a hit.
I am a great admirer of Mme Kauffmann, but have to query her point here: her "keeping everybody reasonably happy" comes at the expense of personal liberty. As a non-believer, I personally think the wearing of religious symbols is ludicrous, but why is this the business of the state to regulate. Similarly, as a secular Jew, I think Holocaust denial is vile beyond belief (one of its foremost practitioners was Robert Faurrisson who was an academic in France ), but criminalizing it, as was done in France, is an attack on liberty of expression.
In both these examples, it seems to me that "llberte" takes a hit.
30
Just remind that France has been gone through religious wars, which you don't know in Massachussets. We had to deal with the power of Christianity during many centuries, the inheritage it let us, and many different religious communities. That lead us to think that religion should remain on privacy, we try to preserve the common peace.
1
Merci d'avoir repondu.
I agree that religion should be private, but I don't see how having religion and the state as virtual adversaries accomplishes this. All it does is make religious people feel discriminated against and the irreligious (comme moi) feel good. So what if some school kid wears a religious symbol to class? I doubt the Republic will crumble. For the country to make some big deal over this strikes me as silly as religious fanatics setting up rules for "modest" and "chaste" dress.
I agree that religion should be private, but I don't see how having religion and the state as virtual adversaries accomplishes this. All it does is make religious people feel discriminated against and the irreligious (comme moi) feel good. So what if some school kid wears a religious symbol to class? I doubt the Republic will crumble. For the country to make some big deal over this strikes me as silly as religious fanatics setting up rules for "modest" and "chaste" dress.
In America we don't usually deal with religious minorities by requiring them to abandon their religious customs in public. Muslim women can go anywhere - except through an airport security screening - fully veiled. Jewish males can wear skullcaps wherever they like. These customs don't hurt anyone. But bullets do. It doesn't seem like a very complicated issue to many of us. Free speech means government cannot prohibit people from saying offensive things. Those who are offended have the freedom to reply with any words they wish. They can also reply with actions, like protests and boycotts, so long as no violence is involved. Keep to these rules and it really doesn't matter how many members of which religion live in your community. Everyone can say what he thinks. No one will be hurt.
24
The total covering of the face is a matter of public safety. For instance, the issue of wearing facial veils for ID cards and DL licenses has been litigated in state courts and the states have prevailed.
8