Terrorist attacks throughout Europe

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.

radical Islamic base: strict separation of sexes, halal food required, etc.

If separation of the sexes and religious traditions regarding the slaughter of animals is radical Islam, then you might need to brush up on your world religions.

Yes, I should be living in fear of my life, every shop in my neighbourhood sells halal food.

I don't know everyone's contexts! Do you remember that I am a Latino American? I wouldn't expect so.

Yes, I do because we became Facebook friends to share Marvel Puzzle Quest rewards.

the right to free and open expression of their faith

Pretty hard to argue with this

Unless you're Catholic obv

But aside from that, my earlier point remains: if the French were able to extricate the obvious racism from the secularist standpoint and its role in society, then there wouldn't be nearly as many issues about the country's Muslim population.

It's also instructive that the countries in which France had the biggest colonial presence tend to be majority Muslim countries. So first, the Western power murders and plunders a country, then tells its inhabitants that their religion is shit? Come the fuck on. What I see happening in France is just a continuation of racial supremacy campaigns and exploitation of resources, namely cheap labor, all swept under the rug of supposed enlightened, progressive values. It's abhorrent.

no one should be murdered in cold blood even if their actions are abhorrent and insensitive

oh “thou shalt not kill” huh? Ok hegemon

Samuel Pety is not an avatar for French colonialism

I’m not sure what part of “this kid should be tried for murder” has been ambiguous in this discussion

no one should be murdered in cold blood even if their actions are abhorrent and insensitive

Tbf he's a stiff now.

xp

I’m being very silly because this story is so horrible and because i hate mainstream French attitudes to race and religion so much

even otherwise very liberal leftie friends of mine there will say things like burkas are offensive and are justified in being banned, that girls shouldn’t wear hearscarves in school, etc, i find it incredibly depressing

no one should be murdered in cold blood even if their actions are abhorrent and insensitive

― trapped out the barndo (crüt), Monday, October 19, 2020 2:20 PM (five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I never said that they should, and I also never made Paty a metonym for French colonialism. We're talking about Islam in French society, as well as this specific, recent incident.

(xp) It's all part of a noble experiment, Tracer.

Tracer, as you can imagine, I also am completely undone and depressed by left-leaning people spouting such Islamophobic dreck.