Other News & General Chat

[Rucksackfranzose]

3 minutes ago, Danny said:

I mean it clearly is islamophobic amongst many other religious based discriminations in which you’ve just listed.

But also it clearly affects Muslims more than most religions as they are garments chosen to be worn by most Muslim women, compared to say a Nun whereas most Christian women will not wear a religious garment

Again France is a secular country, where wearing religious garment isn't expected. If you are in Saudi Arabia and decide to drink alcohol in the public, you face consequences and everybody expect you not to  whine about, if you live in France and decide to wear religious garment the same applies surely..

[Beelzebub]

Crazy scenes coming out of Turkey after the earthquake 

[Beelzebub]

I think that's really fucked up but to each to it's own

[Dr. Gonzo]

Personally, I think there's truth to what both @Danny and @Rucksackfranzose have said about the situation of France, Muslims, Islamophobia, and extremist terrorism.

I think a free press is an important part of society - even if that means that you can have some horribly offensive things printed. I think there should be limits, like a newspaper that calls for genocide should probably be not be able to do that... but that's not really what Charlie Hebdo have done. They've got a long tradition of having some pretty offensive images.

But the thing about offensive images is... they're just images. And you can feel offended by things and have the right to be legitimately offended. So I understand why devout Muslims would be offended by depictions of Mohammed and they have a right to be offended.

But they don't have the right to expect people who aren't practicing Islam to be offended or felt compelled to never show any depictions of Mohammed.

And they certainly don't have the right to murder people over fucking cartoons.

I do think Islamophobia is pretty rife throughout a lot of Europe and, in my eyes, especially in France. If we even ignore the debate over whether the laws banning head coverings in schools/hospitals is meant to disproportionately affect Muslim women and just stick to the recent terror incidents... I don't see why the local government had to take the official stance of "we will project these cartoons onto government buildings."

There are a lot of Muslims in France, and in large part that's due to French colonialism - but that being a part of the local government's response is that municipality tacitly saying "we support the message of these cartoons that offend a lot of our citizens." And when we know that there are segments of Islamic society in Europe that have been radicalised... and we know things like Charlie Hebdo's depictions of Muslims/Mohammed are used as propaganda to radicalise young people and make them potential terrorists. The narrative these extremists push is that the West wages a culture war against Muslims and that Muslims will never be accepted into society, and what that city ended up doing sort of played right into that sort of propaganda.

I think a city's got a different sort of responsibility to a private newspaper and they could have commemorated Paty's murder and stood up for terrorism in a way that was less divisive and provocative.

Not that it justifies terrorism and murder, because it absolutely doesn't and there should be widespread condemnation of all terror attacks from all people.

[Beelzebub]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't see why the local government had to take the official stance of "we will project these cartoons onto government buildings."

 

And Macron already had made remarks to stire tensions up even before these incidents, so something is up

France is in lots of shit already their economy to be shrink by 11% this year, the Paris Climate shit was a cash grab from US but US pulled out. I can see from all of this a public opinion being formed for potential opportunistic wars in MENA 

 

[The Artful Dodger]

1 hour ago, Danny said:

If you ban religious clothing with no real reason other than its religious then you are “the bad guy”. There is no plausible logic to it. It’s wilfully ignorant to ban face coverings and include religious garments in that. It is islamophobic. If you go through such trouble to be known as a secular nation then why would you have policy in place that’s discriminates against a specific religion for no real reason?

Again France is not to blame for beheadings or shootings but it is to blame for discriminating against Muslims

I don't get your point, the reason France is so stringent (overly so in my view) is because it is is so aggressively secular. There are pros and cons to that, but I'm aghast that people can be talking about why France is so bad when people have been beheaded in the street.

On face coverings, I don't get why anyone would want to live in a society where people can't see each other in a public area. It's why masks are troubling for people.

Edited October 30, 2020 by The Artful Dodger

[Dr. Gonzo]

And if the West wants to seriously tackle Islamic Extremism... they should stop funding countries that export Salafist terror groups. And they've got to seriously re-examine the support provided to salafist jihadists in Syria - because the support thrown behind some of these groups is going to backfire and end up being a thorn in their side for the future (much like the US early support for Bin Laden led to a thorn in their side with Al Qaeda decades later). Cut the funding, stop the flow of arms to these groups, stop training them.

These would be massive steps to seriously address the issue. It might mean a recalculation of Western foreign policy, but it's worth it - it'll slow and eventually stop these sorts of attacks from these sorts of people. Because we won't be directly involved in the spread of Salafist extremism and providing it with the financial wealth necessary to make a fringe radical ideology spread the way it has.

The West also know which Mosques and Islamic centres promote this sort of extremism - people should be free to practice whatever religion they want. But the West shouldn't be knowingly allowing people in the West to be going to these places where they know extremism is born - imo, it would be justifiable to crack down on these places and shut them down. Even though that might cause some backlash and cries of Islamophobia, it's a drastic step that can be taken to reduce the spread of extremism while keeping the many places that don't spread this bullshit to Muslims in the West open.

The message that sends is: you're free to practice your religion, you're not free to be a religious extremist.

[Beelzebub]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

 (much like the US early support for Bin Laden).

I was going to post it as @Spike journalism career in mental image thread

[The Artful Dodger]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

And if the West wants to seriously tackle Islamic Extremism... they should stop funding countries that export Salafist terror groups. And they've got to seriously re-examine the support provided to salafist jihadists in Syria - because the support thrown behind some of these groups is going to backfire and end up being a thorn in their side for the future (much like the US early support for Bin Laden led to a thorn in their side with Al Qaeda decades later). Cut the funding, stop the flow of arms to these groups, stop training them.

These would be massive steps to seriously address the issue. It might mean a recalculation of Western foreign policy, but it's worth it - it'll slow and eventually stop these sorts of attacks from these sorts of people. Because we won't be directly involved in the spread of Salafist extremism and providing it with the financial wealth necessary to make a fringe radical ideology spread the way it has.

The West also know which Mosques and Islamic centres promote this sort of extremism - people should be free to practice whatever religion they want. But the West shouldn't be knowingly allowing people in the West to be going to these places where they know extremism is born - imo, it would be justifiable to crack down on these places and shut them down. Even though that might cause some backlash and cries of Islamophobia, it's a drastic step that can be taken to reduce the spread of extremism while keeping the many places that don't spread this bullshit to Muslims in the West open.

The message that sends is: you're free to practice your religion, you're not free to be a religious extremist.

All true on a Macro level, won't find many bigger critics of Western foreign policy than me. But I don't think this is the time. People have been beheaded in the street, for no other reason than they satirised someone in Islam. This cannot be traced back to France's actions, this about fundamentalist Islam and what seems to be the acceptance of these values by moderate Muslims. Nobody should be protesting at a school about being taught things. I don't want to sound  alarmist but there are certain principles you have to accept if you live a country. This is deeply worrying that people will not tolerate people taking the mick out of them. It's a miserable, sour existence and has no place anywhere as far as I'm concerned.

[Danny]

2 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

I don't get your point, the reason France is so stringent (overly so in my view) is because it is is so aggressively secular. There are pros and cons to that, but I'm aghast that people can be talking about why France is so bad when people have been beheaded in the street.

On face coverings, I don't get why anyone would want to live in a society where people can't see each other in a public area. It's why masks are troubling for people.

The intention is to be neutral when being secular is it not? It’s hardly neutral to ban religious garments.

I mean the levels of Islamophobia in France are directly related to what’s happening, no one is saying that these issues excuse or provide enough reason behind beheading someone, but it doesn’t surprise me that a country like France seems to suffer more with these attacks than any other in Europe.

There is literally no issue with not being able to see people’s faces, I’ve lived in London most of my life, in areas surrounded by women with face coverings. It’s not an issue to anyone that isn’t a raging bigot.

[Rucksackfranzose]

1 minute ago, Danny said:

The intention is to be neutral when being secular is it not? It’s hardly neutral to ban religious garments.

I mean the levels of Islamophobia in France are directly related to what’s happening, no one is saying that these issues excuse or provide enough reason behind beheading someone, but it doesn’t surprise me that a country like France seems to suffer more with these attacks than any other in Europe.

There is literally no issue with not being able to see people’s faces, I’ve lived in London most of my life, in areas surrounded by women with face coverings. It’s not an issue to anyone that isn’t a raging bigot.

Secularism isn't neutrality, to be secular in a French sense means to be anti-religious. From this point of view banning religious garment is absolutely fine, and again it doesn't affect Muslims only.

[The Artful Dodger]

14 minutes ago, Danny said:

The intention is to be neutral when being secular is it not? It’s hardly neutral to ban religious garments.

I mean the levels of Islamophobia in France are directly related to what’s happening, no one is saying that these issues excuse or provide enough reason behind beheading someone, but it doesn’t surprise me that a country like France seems to suffer more with these attacks than any other in Europe.

There is literally no issue with not being able to see people’s faces, I’ve lived in London most of my life, in areas surrounded by women with face coverings. It’s not an issue to anyone that isn’t a raging bigot.

I don't think so, it's supposed to be resolutely non-religious. That can take the form of aggressively anti-religion, crucifixes are also banned, effecting a lot of people. 

I'm absolutely amazed you are tacitly trying to say that France is to blame for what has happened. Wow, we're going to hell in a hand cart if supposed liberals won't even stand up and say no, fundamentalist Islam is not welcome here. If you won't see now what an issue this is then you never wiill.

That's your view, but it's not widely held. Facial recognition is a large part of being a human being. Just as we ban people from wearing balaclavas in certain areas it is ok to restrict face coverings of all types in certain areas. Again, I don't support a blanket ban but certainly in court, banks etc I agree.

Edited October 30, 2020 by The Artful Dodger

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, The Artful Dodger said:

All true on a Macro level, won't find many bigger critics of Western foreign policy than me. But I don't think this is the time. People have been beheaded in the street, for no other reason than they satirised someone in Islam. This cannot be traced back to France's actions, this about fundamentalist Islam and what seems to be the acceptance of these values by moderate Muslims. Nobody should be protesting at a school about being taught things. I don't want to sound  alarmist but there are certain principles you have to accept if you live a country. This is deeply worrying that people will not tolerate people taking the mick out of them. It's a miserable, sour existence and has no place anywhere as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think you can separate Islamic Extremism from the spread of Islamic Extremism. One is a byproduct of the other and to seriously address the problem of these terror attacks in the West... the root of the problem needs to be tackled as well or the problem never really goes away. You just end up kicking the can down the road, but when you keep walking the can's still there and you can either keep kicking it along the road... or you can eventually try to pick the can up.

Samuel Paty should not have been murdered for showing comics (that he didn't even draw) in a class on free speech, that is obvious. His murder is especially more tragic as he actually considered the feelings of his Muslim students and warned them they might be offended/disturbed by his class and gave them the opportunity to remove themselves.

He was an educator who was doing his job, yet was considerate enough to consider the offensiveness of his content. He did not deserve to die, and honestly what little I know about him (basically what I've just said here) indicates to me he was probably a good die. Again, it's an absolute tragedy he was murdered.

Similarly, the 3 victims of terror attacks in France yesterday should not have been murdered and I agree with you - it is ridiculous that some people take offense to these comics in such an extreme way.

I really cannot make it more clear, I fully agree with you on the meat of your argument here. But I also think this is a hugely complicated issue that's going to take a lot of communities around the world taking serious steps to ever really stop these things that should absolutely not be happening in any society from happening.

But I don't think this is an issue that's really solvable by just Muslims on their own in their own communities. But yeah, we obviously need to see moderates in Muslim communities in the West step up and be louder voices against Islamic extremism. But by the same token, the West needs to do things to meaningfully stop the spread of extremism when our governments have played a prominent role - for decades - in the spread of this extremism. Salafists were a fringe sect not that long ago, but decades of Western support and serious financial backing in spreading that ideology have played a huge part in making it more mainstream in Islam.

I believe fostering an "us vs. them" mentality hurts everyone involved in this situation - it pushes the idea of the culture war and it'll further radicalise people on all sides. I don't think Charlie Hebdo should be forced to censor themselves, they've been offensive to everyone they feature on their cover for as long as they've existed. But I do think that municipalities taking the opportunity to project these cartoons on government in the aftermath of Paty's murder didn't do anyone any favours and, tbh, is a pretty inflammatory way to commemorate the man's death and show "solidarity" & I can see how it comes off as tacit government support of this bullshit idea of a "culture war." It's certainly not an action that promotes unity amongst France of people of all religions, as it has the high likelihood of irritating even moderate Muslims (because now it's not a media outlet doing what it's always done, it's a city in France's local government showing support with Charlie Hebdo).

I think there's got to be a way to balance taking a strong stand against Islamic extremism that doesn't involve promoting Islamophobia and the idea of a culture war. But I think the most effective step at tackling Islamic extremism in Europe is ending our support of the spread of Islamic extremism in the Middle East. It is the most serious and direct action we (we as in our Western governments, tbh) can take to slow the rate at which Muslims around the world are radicalised. We can't ferment the ideology in one part of the world and then be surprised when it spreads around the world.

But honestly, I'm not hopeful things will change very much in my lifetime. Seriously addressing the issue would require a real shift in the status quo of Western foreign policy (because Saudi Arabia are longtime "partners" and Turkey's an important member of NATO due to it's geographic location) and would likely cause a huge spike in global oil prices & further increase Europe's dependency on Russian oil... as well as cede a lot of influence the US/EU has over the Middle East to geopolitical rivals in Russia & China.

[Dr. Gonzo]

29 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

I'm absolutely amazed you are tacitly trying to say that France is to blame for what has happened. Wow, we're going to hell in a hand cart if supposed liberals won't even stand up and say no, fundamentalist Islam is not welcome here. If you won't see now what an issue this is then you never wiill.

So then you'd agree with me on the idea that France (and all Western countries) should be looking to close down Mosques & Islamic Centres that are known to push insane extremist views? Because I think that's one big step France/the West could take to say that extremists aren't welcome, but the Muslims and their communities that don't push this shit are fine.

I think we're on the same page here tbh.

 

37 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Secularism isn't neutrality, to be secular in a French sense means to be anti-religious. From this point of view banning religious garment is absolutely fine, and again it doesn't affect Muslims only.

I actually think this is one of the most commendable things in French society & I think the fact Muslims are disproportionately affected (again, only at schools and hospitals) - it's an important and commendable part of their culture and it should be respected by people who've come to France to make it their homes.

My only issue with France's stance in all of this was the projection of the offensive cartoons - which seems to be tacit support in content that has a high likelihood it'll piss off loads of Muslims, moderate or otherwise. I understand the idea of wanting to convey an image of solidarity with the victim of a horrific murder & a strong unified stance against extremism... I just don't think the way they went about it was very productive.

[Rucksackfranzose]

38 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

So then you'd agree with me on the idea that France (and all Western countries) should be looking to close down Mosques & Islamic Centres that are known to push insane extremist views? Because I think that's one big step France/the West could take to say that extremists aren't welcome, but the Muslims and their communities that don't push this shit are fine.

I think we're on the same page here tbh.

 

I actually think this is one of the most commendable things in French society & I think the fact Muslims are disproportionately affected (again, only at schools and hospitals) - it's an important and commendable part of their culture and it should be respected by people who've come to France to make it their homes.

My only issue with France's stance in all of this was the projection of the offensive cartoons - which seems to be tacit support in content that has a high likelihood it'll piss off loads of Muslims, moderate or otherwise. I understand the idea of wanting to convey an image of solidarity with the victim of a horrific murder & a strong unified stance against extremism... I just don't think the way they went about it was very productive.

I don't subscribe to the point of view I'm talking about now. Still could imagine that there's or the government suppose there is a "now more than ever"-mentality over this beheading. In the sense of them wanting to send the message they won't back down from this integral part of their society whatever costs it may take. As said don't subscribe to that but can see a logic attitude behind this behavior.

[The Artful Dodger]

55 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't think you can separate Islamic Extremism from the spread of Islamic Extremism. One is a byproduct of the other and to seriously address the problem of these terror attacks in the West... the root of the problem needs to be tackled as well or the problem never really goes away. You just end up kicking the can down the road, but when you keep walking the can's still there and you can either keep kicking it along the road... or you can eventually try to pick the can up.

Samuel Paty should not have been murdered for showing comics (that he didn't even draw) in a class on free speech, that is obvious. His murder is especially more tragic as he actually considered the feelings of his Muslim students and warned them they might be offended/disturbed by his class and gave them the opportunity to remove themselves.

He was an educator who was doing his job, yet was considerate enough to consider the offensiveness of his content. He did not deserve to die, and honestly what little I know about him (basically what I've just said here) indicates to me he was probably a good die. Again, it's an absolute tragedy he was murdered.

Similarly, the 3 victims of terror attacks in France yesterday should not have been murdered and I agree with you - it is ridiculous that some people take offense to these comics in such an extreme way.

I really cannot make it more clear, I fully agree with you on the meat of your argument here. But I also think this is a hugely complicated issue that's going to take a lot of communities around the world taking serious steps to ever really stop these things that should absolutely not be happening in any society from happening.

But I don't think this is an issue that's really solvable by just Muslims on their own in their own communities. But yeah, we obviously need to see moderates in Muslim communities in the West step up and be louder voices against Islamic extremism. But by the same token, the West needs to do things to meaningfully stop the spread of extremism when our governments have played a prominent role - for decades - in the spread of this extremism. Salafists were a fringe sect not that long ago, but decades of Western support and serious financial backing in spreading that ideology have played a huge part in making it more mainstream in Islam.

I believe fostering an "us vs. them" mentality hurts everyone involved in this situation - it pushes the idea of the culture war and it'll further radicalise people on all sides. I don't think Charlie Hebdo should be forced to censor themselves, they've been offensive to everyone they feature on their cover for as long as they've existed. But I do think that municipalities taking the opportunity to project these cartoons on government in the aftermath of Paty's murder didn't do anyone any favours and, tbh, is a pretty inflammatory way to commemorate the man's death and show "solidarity" & I can see how it comes off as tacit government support of this bullshit idea of a "culture war." It's certainly not an action that promotes unity amongst France of people of all religions, as it has the high likelihood of irritating even moderate Muslims (because now it's not a media outlet doing what it's always done, it's a city in France's local government showing support with Charlie Hebdo).

I think there's got to be a way to balance taking a strong stand against Islamic extremism that doesn't involve promoting Islamophobia and the idea of a culture war. But I think the most effective step at tackling Islamic extremism in Europe is ending our support of the spread of Islamic extremism in the Middle East. It is the most serious and direct action we (we as in our Western governments, tbh) can take to slow the rate at which Muslims around the world are radicalised. We can't ferment the ideology in one part of the world and then be surprised when it spreads around the world.

But honestly, I'm not hopeful things will change very much in my lifetime. Seriously addressing the issue would require a real shift in the status quo of Western foreign policy (because Saudi Arabia are longtime "partners" and Turkey's an important member of NATO due to it's geographic location) and would likely cause a huge spike in global oil prices & further increase Europe's dependency on Russian oil... as well as cede a lot of influence the US/EU has over the Middle East to geopolitical rivals in Russia & China.

I agree with all this, anti-Muslim bigotry is a problem that needs to be combatted and Western countries behave largely against the interests of their own citizens at times. I think we need to deal with things on local level and international level. We need condemnation and resolute defiance from all sections in France, but a move to disengage from the middle east all round. 

[6666]

4 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

I don't get your point, the reason France is so stringent (overly so in my view) is because it is is so aggressively secular. There are pros and cons to that.

And the cons to that should be discussed and ridiculed. Secularism is great when talking about a separation between religion and state but when you venture into imposing secularism on to citizens, then you are flirting with fascism.

Of course there's no excuse for violence of any sort. Flaws with any system should be up for discussion whether it's governmental or religious. When it's less of a discussion and more a case of poking people with a stick for the sake of it then there's understandably going to be some backlash. If that backlash crosses into violence then a line has definitely been stepped over but that doesn't invalidate negative feelings to the poking.

[The Artful Dodger]

11 minutes ago, 6666 said:

And the cons to that should be discussed and ridiculed. Secularism is great when talking about a separation between religion and state but when you venture into imposing secularism on to citizens, then you are flirting with fascism.

Of course there's no excuse for violence of any sort. Flaws with any system should be up for discussion whether it's governmental or religious. When it's less of a discussion and more a case of poking people with a stick for the sake of it then there's understandably going to be some backlash. If that backlash crosses into violence then a line has definitely been stepped over but that doesn't invalidate negative feelings to the poking.

Who is poking who? It seems to be that certain people believe they deserve more protection than any other. You should be secure in your beliefs, unless there is something more sinister about Islam that I’m missing? I say this as someone who wants to avoid what I think we can all see is coming. We need Muslim communities to give over with mealy mouthed statement and stop trying to qualify beheading other human beings with ‘well but he did show a cartoon’..... Otherwise you know what will happen and it won’t be pretty. 

[6666]

1 hour ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Who is poking who? It seems to be that certain people believe they deserve more protection than any other. You should be secure in your beliefs, unless there is something more sinister about Islam that I’m missing? I say this as someone who wants to avoid what I think we can all see is coming. We need Muslim communities to give over with mealy mouthed statement and stop trying to qualify beheading other human beings with ‘well but he did show a cartoon’..... Otherwise you know what will happen and it won’t be pretty. 

I haven't really seen people justify beheadings. If they are then they obviously need to take a step back. What I don't think people can do though is conflate someone beheading someone with people voicing their displeasure in non-violent ways. You can disagree with both but you can't use beheadings to invalidate non-violent protests as they're not in the same ball park. It's lazy.

[Beelzebub]

France aside i hope people know there have been ' draw Mohammad cartoon contests ' organised by right wing politicians in Europe Denmark Netherlands etc anyone who doesn't think that satires of Mohammad are never a tool of Islamophobic intentions needs a reality check. 

 

[Rucksackfranzose]

56 minutes ago, Azeem said:

France aside i hope people know there have been ' draw Mohammad cartoon contests ' organised by right wing politicians in Europe Denmark Netherlands etc anyone who doesn't think that satires of Mohammad are never a tool of Islamophobic intentions needs a reality check. 

 

Nobody said or thought something that stupid, though. We discussed the French occurrence, where discussingthese cartoons clearly wasn't a sign of this mind set, though. On a side note murder is murder, whether the victim is islamophobic or not.

And if you don't like the right of free speech to include blasphemous utterances your out of place in Europe, regardless of your ethnicity. Murder is against the law here, islamophobia and blasphemy aren't, rightfully so by the way.

[Beelzebub]

21 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Nobody said or thought something that stupid, though. We discussed the French occurrence, where discussingthese cartoons clearly wasn't a sign of this mind set, though. On a side note murder is murder, whether the victim is islamophobic or not.

And if you don't like the right of free speech to include blasphemous utterances your out of place in Europe, regardless of your ethnicity. Murder is against the law here, islamophobia and blasphemy aren't, rightfully so by the way.

Is that 100% the case with Charlie Hebdo ? They made a cartoon about some rich Jewish guy in 2009 since he protested with economic/legal actions they fired the cartoonist for not apologising. 

[Beelzebub]

For the record no one here is ok with what happened and the murders. Like previously said we're discussing that Religiophobic element of secularism in France. 

[Rucksackfranzose]

1 minute ago, Azeem said:

Is that 100% the case with Charlie Hebdo ? They made a cartoon about some rich Jewish guy in 2009 since he protested with economic/legal actions they fired the cartoonist for not apologising. 

Where is the blasphemy in falsely accusing someone? The cartoonist insinuated falsely said person a crime, which actually is against the law in contrast to blasphemy. What is the significance of his religion in this context?

[Beelzebub]

4 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Where is the blasphemy in falsely accusing someone? The cartoonist insinuated falsely said person a crime, which actually is against the law in contrast to blasphemy. What is the significance of his religion in this context?

Because they didn't made anything about excusing him of something but the typical why Jews are so influential stuff pointed nose etc