Terrorist attacks throughout Europe

I've probably just been watching too much "Criminal Minds" but I feel like there needs to be room in this discussion for the possibility of this kid just being a fucked up kid, and it not being "terrorism" or a threat against the French way of life.

I mean he could be, but there is an ecosphere of extremism that allowed him to get where he was, and similar incidents in recent memory in various European countries.

I guess it goes back to issues of agency and self-determination (related but not the same as what gyac brought up re Muslim women), that Muslims are more circumscribed by their religion/racial identity than white people from Christian cultures.

If the fucked up kid framed it as a political act, it becomes a political act whether or not the kid is politically clueless and only wanted to give some justification to cover his wanting to kill someone.

The "kid" had been frequenting a boxing club in Toulouse that has been investigated for some time as a radical Islamic base: strict separation of sexes, halal food required, etc. Why was a fucked-up kid from Normandy in Toulouse so much? That's 700km from home.

fair enough, I walk it back

I mean he could be, but there is an ecosphere of extremism that allowed him to get where he was, and similar incidents in recent memory in various European countries.

it also is kinda similar to something bamcquern brought up a number of years ago, about how cultural expectations (both within a marginalized group and from the dominant culture) lead to (I'm paraphrasing here) self-fulling prophecies. In bamcquern's example (about public education in America), it was about the expectation that black boys were just going to grow up to be thugs, and how some public schools operate with that assumption and how that encourages the boys to behave that way.

Yes, sorry, just coming back--Euler, I acknowledge I didn't know any of that about the attacker. I googled the news story but I didn't see any English lang articles with that detail. But I think gyac and sarahell have said it better than I could itt.

thanks i.o. -- gyac did the heavy lifting here

I'd still like to hear gyac's reply on whether they think Samuel Paty was discriminating against his students, not because I think that position is absurd, but because it would help me understand the threads of this thread better.

Could not Paty have taught the exact same lesson without physically confronting his Muslim students with the cartoons? What would have been be lost by that approach?

First of all, why? Was he "asking for it" by exercising his right, the exact right he was trying to teach in his civics course?

Second of all, he warned his students about what he was going to show. They were able to not look or even leave the classroom. The student who is at the root of this situation reacted angrily nevertheless and told her father, who posted the first video that went viral.

Not gonna speak for gyac of course but I think that when ppl talk about racialization/marginalization of a group this involves entire societal structures and not reducible to the actions of any one individual. I don't entirely know what I think of this teacher's concrete actions (he might have been doing "the right thing" AND feeding into that oppresion at the same time, even!), but to evaluate that seems pretty facile when he was slaughtered in a horrible manner and whatever disagreements I may have had with his actions obv I don't think (and don't think anyone itt thinks) that was right or just or ok.

Sort of a tangent on this thread as well and perhaps a bit navel-gazing but on the question of the "American" and "French" attitudes towards integration in general it strikes me that one thing that doesn't tend to get brought up is how communities, and specifically activist groups within them, feel on this topic. A lot of what I often see derided as "Americanized thinking" is really just down to listening to and engaging with what those groups say, and have been saying for ages (certainly predating the wokening of the US).

Yes that’s a fair summary of what I mean, Daniel, the structural element is important.

I'd still like to hear gyac's reply on whether they think Samuel Paty was discriminating against his students, not because I think that position is absurd, but because it would help me understand the threads of this thread better.

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari)
Posted: 8 January 2015 at 12:31:21
There's a strong possibility that many of their cartoons would have fallen foul of British laws about inciting racial and religious hatred. Many would have been equally as at home in a Neo-Nazi publication as they were in a libertarian satirical magazine. It's clearly possible to separate the belief that they have a right to publish from a belief that other organisations should republish as a point of principle, though.

xp In the unlikely event Euler's question is serious, no, I don't think Paty was "asking for" his murder and beheading. Rational people understand that crime to be barbaric and grotesquely disproportionate to Paty's actions in the classroom.

That said, imagining there been no murder or other reprisal, would Paty's actions be defensible as good teaching? To me, they look more like a vicarious exercise of state authority over a captive audience than a thoughtful effort to teach concepts of free speech to a multi-cultural group.

Paty was in a position of power with respect to his younger, minority students. He chose to use that power to show them images he knew would be offensive, as his caveats and precautions illustrate. What was it about the content of his lesson that required him to dramatically present the images? Even in the USA, we've all heard of the Hebdo cartoons, so I assume everyone in that classroom knew what was being discussed. Being told they could hide their eyes or leave the room (in other words, disclose their personal religious views to everyone else there) seems manipulative and theatrical. What was gained for greater understanding of free speech by creating that situation?

This is an interesting discussion to me as a person of no religious faith living in the American South, where I encounter hateful, coercive Christianity in various forms every day and see constant efforts to erode the separation of church and state, especially in local school systems. In principle and in practice, greater separation of church and state would be very welcome to me. But I can't reconcile French state policy in this area with my ideas about liberty, equality, or fraternity.

I was being serious, inasmuch as the view that bringing up the consequences of an act as a reason not to do that act is rightly criticized in other cases.

My kids have all been through the course of civics in middle school that Samuel Paty was giving. No, not with him at his school, but the rough structure of this course is shared by all instructors. We just talked about it at dinner, and my kids say the entire point of this course is to understand laïcité and its role in combatting religious extremism. Paty was just doing his job. I gather many here think that he should not have done his job, because this course and possibly the concept of laïcité itself is at odds with a multicultural society. I appreciate gyac's responses on this point, which acknowledges that there is a role for laïcité. But how to thread the needle here? Is banning blasphemy the right way to go? Why give religion that much power? The French take is that religious communities, and sub-communities of all kinds, undermine equality. Surely there's something right there: community networks that exclude other groups convey advantages to its members. But some groups just want to separate: in the case of religious groups, they feel that they're called to separate. How is that compatible with a civil society based on values other than capitalism (which I think undergirds the approach to civic society of the English speaking world)?

*They were able to not look or even leave the classroom.*

Was anyone in the situation expecting that the Muslim students would be cool with the rest of the class seeing it, even if they chose not to? I wouldn't have thought that it's solely the Muslim students *seeing* the cartoon that was the problem, they are probably well aware what it depicts.

O I think Calz probably covered that upthread

imagining there been no murder or other reprisal, would Paty's actions be defensible as good teaching?

Somehow it seems like focussing minor criticisms on the teaching methods on a teacher who was executed verges into victim-blaming territory. Beheading Paty was a barbaric, indefensible, criminal, and inexcusable act. Immediately shifting one's thoughts to finding reasonable objections to what he did in the classroom implies that those objections were wholly justified, but simply expressed disproportionately.

If you want to search for some rational grounds upon which to explain this act, then look to systemic injustice against immigrants. Parsing the finer points of Paty's teaching tells us nothing useful about the problem or its remedies.

"The French take is that religious communities, and sub-communities of all kinds, undermine equality"

This seems (imo, and outside France) to be a very white-privileged perspective though ie from the pov of white non-muslims who have the privilege not to need to form sub-communities (for protection, for support, to stay alive)? Like saying "all lives matter", you come at equality from a very different direction dependending whether you have power or are under siege.

That's fair too! I think of the French take as an experiment: a way to try to achieve equality. Other nations who seek equality (not very many) can try other means, like encouraging subcommunities to individually strive for power against other communities including the majority, and see how that works. I'm not familiar with any diverse nation that has even begun to succeed in equality, so it seems to me like experimentation is a good thing.

The experimentation is necessary but most of the attendant pain is going to be felt by the minority groups being experimented upon.

How long is this experiment scheduled to last? Some of the lab rats might want to know.

(xp)

It was state-of-the-art in Robespierre's time, tbf.

Like, I don't condone this kid's actions and I believe he should be prosecuted. I also believe "we must thoroughly denigrate your core beliefs in order for you to be properly French" isn't an experiment in equality; it's an experiment in suppression. These are not irreconcilable beliefs.

(I do get why other Europeans say France is the European country the most like the US now)

You mean like making a great performative song and dance of following their sacred Revolutionary principles and the precepts when it suits them and ignoring them when it doesn't?

Kind of; more thinking along the lines of the general "everyone is welcome as long as you can turn yourself into a White man" ethos

How is showing extremely offensive cartoons important in teaching about combatting religious extremism? Would it be necessary to show extremely racist cartoons to kids to teach them about combatting racism? What if you let kids of those races leave the classroom before you show the racist cartoons?

DJP, France has terrible racism, but I don't see why its values, to which it tries and fails to reach, are White. They are exclusionary of those who fail to live up to them, so yeah, if you think blasphemy should be banned then this isn't a good place to be, but is thinking that blasphemy should be banned a non White value? That surprises this non White person.

The Yellow Kid, showing the cartoons that offend a particular religious group is to demonstrate the exercise of the basic French right to speak freely against religions. It sounds like you don't think that value is important. And that's fine! Values aren't generally universally valid: some cultures have different values than others, and these values can clash.

Blasphemy is not banned in the UK by the way. (Well, it is in Scotland and NI, but the last prosecution for blasphemy in Scotland was in 1843).

I don't think blasphemy should be banned. I also don't think citizens of an allegedly democratic country should be forced to embrace blasphemy as contingent upon their citizenship.

What was the freedom of speech argument forthis cartoon, since we’re here? What aspect of Islam is being critique here? As I said upthread and which poster Euler absolutely refuses to acknowledge, said national values are absolutely not on offer to everyone in France, and it’s disingenuous to present those ungrateful Muslims could integrate fully if only they chose to.

I don't think the murderer was protesting systemic injustice

*pretend, ffs

Crüt making a snide and useless point, quelle surprise.

Also DJP, rights in general have to be fought for because some people think that the right is wrong. Those who believe that blasphemy is wrong may want the law to make blasphemy illegal. The right to blaspheme is indeed aiming to suppress the supremacy of religious belief over free expression. The aim is to establish a religiously equal society, where no particular religious group has political power over any other. It's ok if you think that's not valuable!

xp to DJP : you're not forced to embrace blasphemy, you're just required to acknowledge it as a right. My citizenship test will probably be a one-hour interview about laïcité, but I will not be asked to piss on a crucifix or on a hijab.

In most Western countries people are not legally prohibited from using discriminatory language in most situations, I'm not sure that getting schoolkids to listen to a list of racial slurs would be a helpful way of explaining that fact to them

gyac, that cartoon is racist rather than religiously aimed.

What national values are you insisting are not available to everyone in France? I would like to respond, but I don't understand what you have in mind.

the right to free and open expression of their faith

I'm thinking that citizenship test will be a breeze.

Also DJP, rights in general have to be fought for because some people think that the right is wrong.

As a Black man in America who has forebears who were lynched, that never occurred to me.

gyac, that cartoon is racist rather than religiously aimed.

Try maybe taking 5 seconds to think about the people you are responding to and their contexts before typing, it may help your points come across better AND would be a good exercise in empathic thought.

I don't know everyone's contexts! Do you remember that I am a Latino American? I wouldn't expect so. I'm sorry for being condescending there. I'm trying to get at the roots of the objections (aside from "Euler is an asshole", well...). I'm also trying to keep cool through the zings, which as ever serve to show who can be ignored.

Like gyac, you obviously just want to zing me, but it's not like I'm committed to the view that every Charlie Hebdo cartoon is about religious freedom. Why would I be?

xps

If you want to search for some rational grounds upon which to explain this act, then look to systemic injustice against immigrants.

I don't want to search for rational grounds for an indefensible murder. The horror of the act speaks for itself.

Parsing the finer points of Paty's teaching tells us nothing useful about the problem or its remedies.

That depends on which problem we are examining. I'm suggesting that laïcité itself is problematic, not because of Paty's murder or any other act of terror it might incite, but because it seems to be, at least in some of its manifestations, discriminatory and racist.

I apologize for my bad taste in raising these points now. Thanks to Euler's explanations, I understand that laïcité has roots in French history that long predate Islamist terrorism. A thread about terrorist attacks in Europe is probably not the best place for my criticisms, and this isn't the best time to make them.