2020 French Terrorist Beheadings and Attacks Thread

[Insaanistan]

As someone who is offended, I can assure you: it is offensive.

Just because you choose to be offended by something, doesn't immediately mean that it actually is.

-Final prophet in my religion
-Considered to be the best of mankind by my religion
-Someone many of my relatives are named for
-A person I pray for God to bless literally every day

Yeah, I have reason to be offended, mate.

[Kowani]

As someone who is offended, I can assure you: it is offensive.

Just because you choose to be offended by something, doesn't immediately mean that it actually is.

that's not how offense works under literally any definition

[Fahran]

As far as I'm aware laïcité has always been about curtailing the political, economic, and social influence of religion in the public sphere and the current policy simply represents its imposition on a novel religious grouping that has, by and large, become more resistant to mandatory public secularism as generations have passed. You're pointing it out as a problem of laïcité, but, by proponents of the policy and the paradigm underpinning it, it's actually an intentional feature of it and always has been. France went to great lengths to break the power of the Catholic Church within its national borders and to forcibly secularize its own population. Aside from China and the USSR, it's probably been one of the more successful countries in that respect. Mexico tried something similar and had to deal with the Cristeros as a result. And the US would never countenance such a policy specifically because we perceive it (rightly) as violating religious liberties.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Just because you choose to be offended by something, doesn't immediately mean that it actually is.

-Final prophet in my religion
-Considered to be the best of mankind by my religion
-Someone many of my relatives are named for
-A person I pray for God to bless literally every day

Yeah, I have reason to be offended, mate.

You really don't.

[The Marlborough]

Jews don't have such a problem with displaying Moses or David, AFAIK. But Charlie Hebdo does mock all religions equally, and it's not uncommon for teachers to show to students drawings that can be offensive for Christians, like a nun masturbating with a crucifix, or the pope molesting children (as a way to criticize the way the catholic church did massive cover-up for priests abusing children). It might hurt their the feelings of christian students, but when it's done within the context of history lesson, it doesn't shock me. Teaching implies, at some point, teaching about unpleasant facts.

Yeah, but the cartoons were of Muhammad (pbuh), not Jesus (pbuh). Drawing the Pope or a nun would be closer to drawing Iran’s Ayatollah or an imam or sheikh.

So it's okay for them to show cartoons that would offend Christian students but not Muslim?

[Insaanistan]

Yeah, but the cartoons were of Muhammad (pbuh), not Jesus (pbuh). Drawing the Pope or a nun would be closer to drawing Iran’s Ayatollah or an imam or sheikh.

So it's okay for them to show cartoons that would offend Christian students but not Muslim?

No, not really.

[Insaanistan]

-Final prophet in my religion
-Considered to be the best of mankind by my religion
-Someone many of my relatives are named for
-A person I pray for God to bless literally every day

Yeah, I have reason to be offended, mate.

You really don't.

I really do.

[Paddy O Fernature]

You really don't.

I really do.

Agree to disagree I guess.

So it's okay for them to show cartoons that would offend Christian students but not Muslim?

No, not really.

Then would you be this adamant if said cartoon was about another faith and not Islam?

[Insaanistan]

I really do.

Sorry, I forgot that Islam has a special set of rules attached to it so as not to upset it's true believers.

No, not really.

Then would you be this adamant if said cartoon was about another faith and not Islam?

Yes, actually.

If I see a cartoon in Pakistan mocking Ram or a cartoon in Estonia mocking Jesus (pbuh), I’m gonna be mad.

Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Isaai: Aapas mein sab bhai bhai!
(Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian: All are my brothers!)

[Fahran]

So it's okay for them to show cartoons that would offend Christian students but not Muslim?

Honestly, so long as it's somewhat relevant to the lesson, I don't think I can have serious objections to caricatures, though it's important to be careful in how we pursue and talk about such lessons.

That said, as I pointed out in previous conversations about respect and lèse-majesté, it's wholly sensible, righteous even, for people to express offense and indignation when that which is sacred is desecrated, demeaned, profaned, or even made light of. The problem that arises is that such things have become ubiquitous and routine in the society that we have at present and most Jews and Christians have become extremely secular compared to how they behaved in the early modern period.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Sorry, I forgot that Islam has a special set of rules attached to it so as not to upset it's true believers.



Then would you be this adamant if said cartoon was about another faith and not Islam?

Yes, actually.

If I see a cartoon in Pakistan mocking Ram or a cartoon in Estonia mocking Jesus (pbuh), I’m gonna be mad.

Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Isaai: Aapas mein sab bhai bhai!
(Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian: All are my brothers!)

Then in my opinion, you must constantly be mad over literally nothing then.

[Insaanistan]

Yes, actually.

If I see a cartoon in Pakistan mocking Ram or a cartoon in Estonia mocking Jesus (pbuh), I’m gonna be mad.

Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Isaai: Aapas mein sab bhai bhai!
(Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian: All are my brothers!)

Then in my opinion, you must constantly be mad over literally nothing then.

I am mad over offensive stuff.

I’m as mad when I’m called the n-word as I was when some kid called my best friend “a beaner f*ggot sl*t”.

I’m not Mexican, I’m not bi (well...), I’m not a girl. Still got mad.

[Kowani]

Well, it's more like saying the n- word in a history lesson about racism. Or showing some anti-Semite caricatures in an history lesson about the 1930s to explain the climate that lead to the Shoah. The Charlie Hebdo terror attack is part of modern history, it makes sense for teachers to speak about it. And it's not completely irrelevant to show the drawings published in Cherlie Hebdo that triggered it. I understand it can hurt feelings, but it's still very different from voluntarily insulting someone.

If said caricatures were about Moses (pbuh) or David (pbuh) it’d be a more accurate description. I’m not saying “Let’s just not talk about it.” However, it wasn’t necessary to show the cartoons the way he did.

i mean
they kind of were
if you want to teach kids the way different religions are conceived of and criticized, you have to actually....you know
show that
you can't just say "and they even make cartoons of muhammad!"
that's failing as an educator

[Kilobugya]

-Final prophet in my religion
-Considered to be the best of mankind by my religion
-Someone many of my relatives are named for
-A person I pray for God to bless literally every day

Yeah, I have reason to be offended, mate.

Well, I'm an atheist. But there are people I respect a lot and have a lot of emotional commitment too, from persons I consider heroes in politics (Salvador Allende, Guy Môquet, Missak Manouchian, Ambroise Croizat, ...) to family members (like my grand father who risked his live in the International Brigads to try to save Spain from fascism, or my grand-mother who risked her lives to hide Jews from the nazis). I would be very upset if someone mocked, insulted or ridiculed them in front of me.

I'll tell you a personal story. I went mad at my history teacher when I was like 13 or 14, the age of the girl in this tragedy, when he said that french communists collaborated with nazis until Nazi Germany attacked USSR. Because to me he was insulting Guy Môquet, one of my personal idols at the time (and still now). Guy Môquet, son a communist father, who could go to holidays for the first time of his life in 1936 at the age of 12, thanks to Front Populaire, who dreamed of that bright future his father was building for all the working class. To then see all dreams shatter with Nazi occupation and his father arrested. So he joined the clandestine Youth Communists, and distributed flyers against the nazis and the Occupation. He was arrested at 16 and executed with 26 others communists and trade unionists by the nazis at the age of 17, in 1941, before USSR entered the war. He wrote an heartbreaking last letter to his family, wrote "you who will remain, be worthy of us, the 27 who will die" with chalk on his prison cells, and sang the Internationale and the Jeune Garde on his way to death. So yes, I was hurt, outraged and offended when the teacher said the french communists collaborated with the nazis, as he insulted one of my personal heroes.

And yet I wouldn't have mind if a teacher would show me a picture of Guy Môquet being mocked or ridiculed by nazis sympathizers, or by modern right-wing newspapers, or anyone else, as long as the teacher just showed it as a fact, to explain what was the reaction to the execution of Guy Môquet, without defending or validating the message of the drawing.

That's a fundamental difference to me - publishing a cartoon in order to insult or provoke Muslims is indeed problematic. Showing that said cartoon in an history lesson, objectively without approving it, just to explain the events that lead to a situation, shouldn't be perceived as an attack or an offense. If it does, well, I would say the problem is on your side, not on the teacher's side.

[Thermodolia]

Yes, actually.

If I see a cartoon in Pakistan mocking Ram or a cartoon in Estonia mocking Jesus (pbuh), I’m gonna be mad.

Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Isaai: Aapas mein sab bhai bhai!
(Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian: All are my brothers!)

Then in my opinion, you must constantly be mad over literally nothing then.

Must be tiring to be that mad

[Paddy O Fernature]

Then in my opinion, you must constantly be mad over literally nothing then.

Must be tiring to be that mad

I would imagine that it would be. However, constantly being that upset over nothing seems to be the new norm these days.

[Ethel mermania]

Yes, actually.

If I see a cartoon in Pakistan mocking Ram or a cartoon in Estonia mocking Jesus (pbuh), I’m gonna be mad.

Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Isaai: Aapas mein sab bhai bhai!
(Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian: All are my brothers!)

Then in my opinion, you must constantly be mad over literally nothing then.

Except jews, they are not on his list of brothers

[Insaanistan]

Then in my opinion, you must constantly be mad over literally nothing then.

Except jews, they are not on his list of brothers

Considering the chant is from India, you can deduce why “Jew” wasn’t part of the song.

[Insaanistan]

Must be tiring to be that mad

I would imagine that it would be. However, constantly being that upset over nothing seems to be the new norm these days.

“This isn’t offensive to me. Therefore, not offensive. Duh.”

[Ethel mermania]

Except jews, they are not on his list of brothers

Considering the chant is from India, you can deduce why “Jew” wasn’t part of the song.

Yes I can, and from the paragraph above that from what you wrote i can deduce why insulting them isn't an issue for you.

[Insaanistan]

-Final prophet in my religion
-Considered to be the best of mankind by my religion
-Someone many of my relatives are named for
-A person I pray for God to bless literally every day

Yeah, I have reason to be offended, mate.

Well, I'm an atheist. But there are people I respect a lot and have a lot of emotional commitment too, from persons I consider heroes in politics (Salvador Allende, Guy Môquet, Missak Manouchian, Ambroise Croizat, ...) to family members (like my grand father who risked his live in the International Brigads to try to save Spain from fascism, or my grand-mother who risked her lives to hide Jews from the nazis). I would be very upset if someone mocked, insulted or ridiculed them in front of me.

I'll tell you a personal story. I went mad at my history teacher when I was like 13 or 14, the age of the girl in this tragedy, when he said that french communists collaborated with nazis until Nazi Germany attacked USSR. Because to me he was insulting Guy Môquet, one of my personal idols at the time (and still now). Guy Môquet, son a communist father, who could go to holidays for the first time of his life in 1936 at the age of 12, thanks to Front Populaire, who dreamed of that bright future his father was building for all the working class. To then see all dreams shatter with Nazi occupation and his father arrested. So he joined the clandestine Youth Communists, and distributed flyers against the nazis and the Occupation. He was arrested at 16 and executed with 26 others communists and trade unionists by the nazis at the age of 17, in 1941, before USSR entered the war. He wrote an heartbreaking last letter to his family, wrote "you who will remain, be worthy of us, the 27 who will die" with chalk on his prison cells, and sang the Internationale and the Jeune Garde on his way to death. So yes, I was hurt, outraged and offended when the teacher said the french communists collaborated with the nazis, as he insulted one of my personal heroes.

And yet I wouldn't have mind if a teacher would show me a picture of Guy Môquet being mocked or ridiculed by nazis sympathizers, or by modern right-wing newspapers, or anyone else, as long as the teacher just showed it as a fact, to explain what was the reaction to the execution of Guy Môquet, without defending or validating the message of the drawing.

That's a fundamental difference to me - publishing a cartoon in order to insult or provoke Muslims is indeed problematic. Showing that said cartoon in an history lesson, objectively without approving it, just to explain the events that lead to a situation, shouldn't be perceived as an attack or an offense. If it does, well, I would say the problem is on your side, not on the teacher's side.

If it had been more like “the terrorist attacks were over offensive images such as this. Ali, Boubacar, Fatima, I’m about to show an offensive drawing of Muhammad. Please close your eyes if you think you should,” then I’d understand. But it was a bit more like “We have free speech in this country. So, we can show stuff like this. Leave if you’re gonna get offended.”

Not saying he should have been killed. Not by a long shot. Samuel deserved life.

[Insaanistan]

Considering the chant is from India, you can deduce why “Jew” wasn’t part of the song.

Yes I can, and from the paragraph above that from what you wrote i can deduce why insulting them isn't an issue for you.

No, insulting Judaism is an issue for me, mate. Why wouldn’t it be: there were practicing Jews who were martyred fighting along side Muslims at the Battle of Uhud.

Would it make you feel better if I said “or a cartoon in Belgium making fun of David (pbuh)”?

[Kowani]

Well, I'm an atheist. But there are people I respect a lot and have a lot of emotional commitment too, from persons I consider heroes in politics (Salvador Allende, Guy Môquet, Missak Manouchian, Ambroise Croizat, ...) to family members (like my grand father who risked his live in the International Brigads to try to save Spain from fascism, or my grand-mother who risked her lives to hide Jews from the nazis). I would be very upset if someone mocked, insulted or ridiculed them in front of me.

I'll tell you a personal story. I went mad at my history teacher when I was like 13 or 14, the age of the girl in this tragedy, when he said that french communists collaborated with nazis until Nazi Germany attacked USSR. Because to me he was insulting Guy Môquet, one of my personal idols at the time (and still now). Guy Môquet, son a communist father, who could go to holidays for the first time of his life in 1936 at the age of 12, thanks to Front Populaire, who dreamed of that bright future his father was building for all the working class. To then see all dreams shatter with Nazi occupation and his father arrested. So he joined the clandestine Youth Communists, and distributed flyers against the nazis and the Occupation. He was arrested at 16 and executed with 26 others communists and trade unionists by the nazis at the age of 17, in 1941, before USSR entered the war. He wrote an heartbreaking last letter to his family, wrote "you who will remain, be worthy of us, the 27 who will die" with chalk on his prison cells, and sang the Internationale and the Jeune Garde on his way to death. So yes, I was hurt, outraged and offended when the teacher said the french communists collaborated with the nazis, as he insulted one of my personal heroes.

And yet I wouldn't have mind if a teacher would show me a picture of Guy Môquet being mocked or ridiculed by nazis sympathizers, or by modern right-wing newspapers, or anyone else, as long as the teacher just showed it as a fact, to explain what was the reaction to the execution of Guy Môquet, without defending or validating the message of the drawing.

That's a fundamental difference to me - publishing a cartoon in order to insult or provoke Muslims is indeed problematic. Showing that said cartoon in an history lesson, objectively without approving it, just to explain the events that lead to a situation, shouldn't be perceived as an attack or an offense. If it does, well, I would say the problem is on your side, not on the teacher's side.

If it had been more like “the terrorist attacks were over offensive images such as this. Ali, Boubacar, Fatima, I’m about to show an offensive drawing of Muhammad. Please close your eyes if you think you should,” then I’d understand. But it was a bit more like “We have free speech in this country. So, we can show stuff like this. Leave if you’re gonna get offended.”

Not saying he should have been killed. Not by a long shot. Samuel deserved life.

small problem
the example that you said would be fine is what happened
from the guardian article i posted earlier

On 6 October last year, Paty, a history and geography teacher, gave a class on the subject of “dilemmas”. He posed the question “to be or not to be Charlie?”, referring to the #JeSuisCharlie hashtag used to express support for the paper after a terrorist attack on its offices in January 2015 that killed 12 people.

Paty is said to have invited Muslim pupils who thought they might be shocked to close their eyes or briefly stand in the corridor while he showed pupils a caricature of the Prophet.

and the BBC version

As he had done in similar lessons on free speech in previous years, Paty warned students that he was about to show a depiction of Muhammad. He said anyone who thought they might be offended could close their eyes.

[Insaanistan]

If it had been more like “the terrorist attacks were over offensive images such as this. Ali, Boubacar, Fatima, I’m about to show an offensive drawing of Muhammad. Please close your eyes if you think you should,” then I’d understand. But it was a bit more like “We have free speech in this country. So, we can show stuff like this. Leave if you’re gonna get offended.”

Not saying he should have been killed. Not by a long shot. Samuel deserved life.

small problem
the example that you said would be fine is what happened
from the guardian article i posted earlier

On 6 October last year, Paty, a history and geography teacher, gave a class on the subject of “dilemmas”. He posed the question “to be or not to be Charlie?”, referring to the #JeSuisCharlie hashtag used to express support for the paper after a terrorist attack on its offices in January 2015 that killed 12 people.

Paty is said to have invited Muslim pupils who thought they might be shocked to close their eyes or briefly stand in the corridor while he showed pupils a caricature of the Prophet.

and the BBC version

As he had done in similar lessons on free speech in previous years, Paty warned students that he was about to show a depiction of Muhammad. He said anyone who thought they might be offended could close their eyes.

a) I only saw people saying he told them to leave, so naturally I assumed that
b) bearing this in mind, I still was referring largely to more what he said before he said they should close their eyes if necessary.

[Ethel mermania]

Yes I can, and from the paragraph above that from what you wrote i can deduce why insulting them isn't an issue for you.

No, insulting Judaism is an issue for me, mate. Why wouldn’t it be: there were practicing Jews who were martyred fighting along side Muslims at the Battle of Uhud.

Would it make you feel better if I said “or a cartoon in Belgium making fun of David (pbuh)”?

If you had started from there, I would not have said a word.

And I don't want to derail this thread anymore than I already have.