I think groups like Charlie Hebdo have some responsibility to consider the nature of their satire - insulting people for the sake of it is unproductive and abusive when this supports harmful and untrue stereotypes of other groups. On the other hand, there is a definite sense in which people have unjustified expectations that their beliefs should be treated with the same respect that they themselves give them. The kind of sensitivity that people demand gives their beliefs too much power - their hagiographies should be accepted as authoritative and remain unchallenged; their claims that âthe fool has said in his heart, there is no godâ should be protected, but any criticism of their beliefs is invalid if it doesnât come from the background of faith in that religion, and the cultural dominance of certain religions should be respected.
This is one area that I think Monty Python was very insightful about in The Life of Brian. They didnât really insult Jesus at all, rather they got to the heart of unquestioned religious belief and showed how empty the protests of the film were, including from respected religious leaders - and what the consequences would be if their arguments continued to be accepted. Their claims of offence were really claims to cultural dominance. There have been terrorism threats and other protests since, but the pen has largely won this argument - claims of blasphemy against Christianity donât hold any real power in most places and people have to move to the argument that their rights are not being respected when their religious beliefs are mocked (which is still weak, but it implicitly accepts the loss of cultural dominance). Islam is a minority in France, but it enjoys a lot of unquestioned dominance in other parts of the world and there will be fundamentalists who donât want to let that go. While we should respect people who are different from us, their beliefs donât get the same right. If attacks like this cause us to give away free speech for the sake of sensitivity or to respond in kind by attacking Muslims, this will show our lack of confidence in the power of ideas and our commitment to the freedom to express them.
Itâs kinda the point. For whatever criticisms are levelled at Charlie Hebdo, their comics include political commentary as well as offensiveness. What that image shows is is that if people think Charlie Hebdo is needlessly inciting an aggrevated response for lulz and racism alone, they aint seen nothinâ yet. Itâs possible to be much more offensive and entirely devoid of political or social commentary if they really wanted to.
âMost placesâ dont include, for example, Spain and Ireland, where antiblasphemy laws are in effect. Something to take into account before congratulating themselves on how different we are from Islamic countries.
There is a lot of progress that needs to be made in Europe and fundamentalism isnât dead, but there really is no equivalence here. In Ireland, the last prosecution for blasphemy was in 1855, when a Catholic priest mistakenly burned a Protestant Bible among other âirreligiousâ books; he was acquitted. In Spain, the law is against vilification of religious sensibilities and could be used to a similar effect, but it is also very infrequently used. The most recent (and only) example of its use was in the prosecution of Javier Krahe in 2012. He was acquitted and it was highlighted that his satirical representation of Jesus was intended to provoke and critique rather than specifically to offend, and therefore constituted legitimate artistic licence and was not a crime. Still, the laws in both countries are very controversial. There are other laws around Europe that are somewhat similar to blasphemy laws, but they are very rarely or never applied (generally when they are used it is to prosecute hate speech against groups, not their god). Prosecutions for blasphemy in Islamic countries are much more common and generally relate to the more traditional definition of the term. Theyâre also much more likely to be accepted and the punishments are much more severe.
In any case, my point wasnât that we should pat ourselves on the back in the west, but that in most places even the church has adopted the language of free speech and pluralism. The fact that the former editor of a major daily newspaper can publish the claim that denying that the UK is a Christian country amounts to an attack by âangry atheistsâ shows that thereâs still some way to go. I like the tweet by Michael Kerr though, because the battle between the pen and the sword is not one between Muslims and the west, or religion and atheism; itâs between extremist ideologies and freedom of expression. Itâs therefore a battle that we can lose or be on the wrong side of by giving in to violence or using it ourselves.
Iâve considered saying that myself in reply to religious people. But instead I favor the reply, âYou can pray as hard as you like, but Iâm going to do something.â
Iâve also spent time explaining to Christians how offensive their intercessory prayer is. Because itâs the same as asking their god to violate my free will and make me do things they think I should do.
⌠Youâre gonna bomb 3 ideological assholes with military aircraft, how exactly?
@ldobe
Iâm known here for my over-reaction on things but the suggestion is just nonsensical⌠one of the suspects is in police custody and the other two are somewhere on the run in France. All of them have lived in France most of their lives, so are we gonna bomb France? Or IS? âŚwho are already being bombed with reasonable success.
My point was that some elements only respond to force. Woody Guthrieâs guitar didnât do shit when it came to killing Nazis, unless maybe Daffy Duck whacked Adolf over the head with a Martin in some forgotten WB cartoon.
Not that a B-17 is my weapon of choice against the Charlie Hebdo killers or their enablers, but a death-dealing weapon of some sort is going to have to come into play.
Now, if you or anyone else here has a workable, âpeacefulâ plan to make these thugs understand that they need to become adults and deal with things that offend them in a law abiding manner, Iâm open to being convinced. Just be advised that any suggestions involving hashtags, bumperstickers or T-shirts are grounds for mockery.
More or less the same plan I have since 9/11. Stop treating this as a war, treat it as a police matter, know that you will have to endure a lot of it yet because thats how the world is, and stop escalating things in an neverending cycle of terror -> war -> terror.
Iâm prepared to be a lot more aggressive within my own country than I am overseas. Want to live in a medieval theocracy like Saudi Arabia or Iran? I canât stop you, enjoy yourself. But you are not bringing that shit to MY country. Learn to live with a goddamn cartoon, or get out.
⌠get out, exactly, where? I mean, France has 5 or 6 million Muslims. A lot of them, natives.
Again, police matter. You kill in the name of Allah and the Islamic State, you get the same treatment as if you kill for any other cause: a lot of time in jail.
