Teacher beheaded in Paris street

Original post by Napp

Interesting precedent though, plenty of people dont accept a variety of British values (generally defined as tolerance, liberalism and freedom).

You're not telling me that plenty of people would like to be deprived of freedom?

Original post by Napp

For example, should we banish anyone who holds dubious views on homosexuals?

I don't think that the view on homosexuals is anything fundmantal. The rule of personal freedom is.
Aside from that specific example, the point of nation state is that you have some priviledges in yours, thus the laws of native inhabitants and immigrants might differ. Maybe they even should differ. Otherwise there would be no point for existence of states.

Original post by Napp

Bigger point being, it would be an exceptionally perverse country where everyone was in total agreement on what the nominal values are.

There aren't that many of the basic values, probably just a few.
Ultimately liberalism always faces one paradox; while tolerance is one of its core values, it cannot tolerate intolerance, in order to prevent self-destruction. Thus punishment of intolerant ideologies, such as Nazism for example, is permitted.

The real situation also cannot be described in binary terms, at least if we considered only one parameter. What should be taken into account, I think, is that how much someone falls beyond the norms. One thing is to have some dislike for freedom of speech, without having a good idea what to do about it. Quite another is thinking that everyone who say or show something that is not permitted by some ideology, ought to be killed.

Reply 183

Original post by PTMalewski

I'm not scared, I'm worried.
A recent poll showed that 29% of French Muslims think that Islam is not compatible with French values.
My stance on this, is that if they don't accept the French values, they should leave the country. And if they refuse, France has a perfect right to expel them.

A nation evolves and advances through the changing views and perceptions of its citizens. By your argument, all the abolitionists should have been expelled from Britain in the 19th century. Similarly, all the Suffragettes a century ago.

Also, where exactly do you propose to expel a person who is 2nd or more generation French to?
Two of those "French values" which you value so highly are upholding the law and protecting the rights of the individual, and the law states that a government cannot intentionally make a person stateless. Attraper vingt-deux, mon brave.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 184

Original post by QE2

Arresting everyone with a connection to the incident and closing down the mosque they attend is hardly "allowing the Islamists to win" through ever weaker responses.

Anyway, what is your suggested alternative? Vigilante action against people who you consider to be insulting and opposing our culture and heritage?

"Muhammad" is one of the most common names on the planet. It is simply an identifier. Calling someone a "prophet" doesn't mean that their claims are true, only that they made them. The BBC does refer to "Jesus Christ", which is a similar acknowledgement.
You are definitely overthinking that one.

Oh come on, who is going to think that when Charlie Hebdo publishes cartoons ridiculing Muhammad the subject of the satire was ever going to be considered one of the millions and millions named after him??

The BBC goes to exquisite lengths to avoid offence. If they were being really true to their supposedly neutral principles they would say something like "Muhammad, believed by Muslims to be the Prophet of God," or some such tortured formula.

To call Muhammad the (not a, not Jesus or Moses, the) Prophet is far less risky, far less beheady. Who needs the hassle? Just implicitly admit he was who he said he was.

To your question, what should our response be as a society, I have already given it. Lessons on free speech and secularism, and the threats caused by all religions should be mandatory in schools. These cartoons should be shown in every classroom in the country. They can't kill every teacher. To self censor is to let them win.

Newspapers should publish the cartoons on a regular basis, as should the TV networks. As it is they are nowhere to be found (unless you actively search).

Is that what the cartoonists died for? For them never to be shown ever again? In what way is that NOT a win for the murderers??

Reply 185

Original post by generallee

Oh come on, who is going to think that when Charlie Hebdo publishes cartoons ridiculing Muhammad the subject of the satire was ever going to be considered one of the millions and millions named after him??

The BBC goes to exquisite lengths to avoid offence. If they were being really true to their supposedly neutral principles they would say something like "Muhammad, believed by Muslims to be the Prophet of God," or some such tortured formula.

To call Muhammad the (not a, not Jesus or Moses, the) Prophet is far less risky, far less beheady. Who needs the hassle? Just implicitly admit he was who he said he was.

Referring to the historical character as "the prophet Muhammad" is not undue deference, it's his title. It is simply standard practice. The BBC also refer to "His Holiness the Pope", "Her Majesty the Queen", "Prime Minister Boris Johnson", "President Trump". Do you also object to that? This really is a non-issue.

To your question, what should our response be as a society, I have already given it. Lessons on free speech and secularism, and the threats caused by all religions should be mandatory in schools. These cartoons should be shown in every classroom in the country. They can't kill every teacher. To self censor is to let them win.

Newspapers should publish the cartoons on a regular basis, as should the TV networks. As it is they are nowhere to be found (unless you actively search).

Is that what the cartoonists died for? For them never to be shown ever again? In what way is that NOT a win for the murderers??

I agree that more broadcasters and publishers should display the various cartoons and caricatures - but only in an appropriate context (the case of the teacher is an example of an appropriate context). Even CH themselves have stated this in response to repeated requests over the years that they re-publish them.

Reply 186

Original post by QE2

Referring to the historical character as "the prophet Muhammad" is not undue deference, it's his title. It is simply standard practice. The BBC also refer to "His Holiness the Pope", "Her Majesty the Queen", "Prime Minister Boris Johnson", "President Trump". Do you also object to that? This really is a non-issue.

I agree that more broadcasters and publishers should display the various cartoons and caricatures - but only in an appropriate context (the case of the teacher is an example of an appropriate context). Even CH themselves have stated this in response to repeated requests over the years that they re-publish them.

To your first point, we are now subject to the law of diminishing returns so this will be my last comment on the subject. The analogy is inapposite. Elizabeth II IS a Queen, Johnson IS a Prime Minister and Trump IS a President. Mohammed was a self proclaimed Prophet, not a genuine one. He was a charlatan, albeit utterly brilliant and extraordinary, influential in a world historical sense. And you think that just as much as I do. So why implicitly accept his claim to be a conduit from God?

To your second point, yes I agree, it shouldn't be needlessly provocative. But now, when a teacher has been beheaded for showing them IS such a time, no?

And I don't see your beloved BBC showing them, or any other broadcaster of newspaper, for that matter. Nor do I see them being shown in British classrooms. That is why I say the Islamists are winning. They don't need to behead anyone here (for that reason at least). The job has already been done.

Reply 187

Original post by generallee

To your first point, we are now subject to the law of diminishing returns so this will be my last comment on the subject. The analogy is inapposite. Elizabeth II IS a Queen, Johnson IS a Prime Minister and Trump IS a President. Mohammed was a self proclaimed Prophet, not a genuine one. He was a charlatan, albeit utterly brilliant and extraordinary, influential in a world historical sense. And you think that just as much as I do. So why implicitly accept his claim to be a conduit from God?

Hold on. What is a "genuine prophet", as opposed to a "self-proclaimed" one? All prophets self-proclaim their own prophethood, by definition. Referring to someone a a "prophet" doe not imply that you accept that they were actually in contact with a real god. :confused:

Also, I do not recognise the concept of the monarchy. She is a "self proclaimed" queen.

To your second point, yes I agree, it shouldn't be needlessly provocative. But now, when a teacher has been beheaded for showing them IS such a time, no?

And I don't see your beloved BBC showing them, or any other broadcaster of newspaper, for that matter. Nor do I see them being shown in British classrooms. That is why I say the Islamists are winning. They don't need to behead anyone here (for that reason at least). The job has already been done.

The Beeb and schools obviously consider it "needlessly provocative", as they are entitled to do. It is not your place to dictate to them what they must or must not show (insert quip about irony here).

However, anyone who wishes to display them is free to do so. As this discussion is about that very thing, this is a perfect example of a contextually appropriate situation...

Reply 188

Original post by QE2

Hold on. What is a "genuine prophet", as opposed to a "self-proclaimed" one? All prophets self-proclaim their own prophethood, by definition. Referring to someone a a "prophet" doe not imply that you accept that they were actually in contact with a real god. :confused:

Also, I do not recognise the concept of the monarchy. She is a "self proclaimed" queen.

The Beeb and schools obviously consider it "needlessly provocative", as they are entitled to do. It is not your place to dictate to them what they must or must not show (insert quip about irony here).

However, anyone who wishes to display them is free to do so. As this discussion is about that very thing, this is a perfect example of a contextually appropriate situation...

Do you think it is "needlessly provocative" to show the cartoons on television now? If you were in a senior editorial position at the BBC with discretion to make such a decision would you consider them newsworthy after this concomitant murder, out of interest?

Or would you self censor to ensure that no BBC employee was beheaded?

Reply 189

username1799249

19

Original post by PTMalewski

I'm not scared, I'm worried.
A recent poll showed that 29% of French Muslims think that Islam is not compatible with French values.
My stance on this, is that if they don't accept the French values, they should leave the country. And if they refuse, France has a perfect right to expel them.

Yep. And 50% of Americans believe that God created the earth 4000 years ago.
If people think something that doesn't mean it is true, especially if those thoughts are based on prejudice, fear and ignorance. And where as 29% are concerned, clearly 71% don't have a problem?

Reply 190

Original post by generallee

Do you think it is "needlessly provocative" to show the cartoons on television now?

Depends on the context, obviously.

If you were in a senior editorial position at the BBC with discretion to make such a decision would you consider them newsworthy after this concomitant murder, out of interest?

In the appropriate context, yes. I would authorise their showing in a news or current affairs programme, but not in Bake Off or MOTD.

Reply 191

Fullofsurprises

Original post by generallee

To your first point, we are now subject to the law of diminishing returns so this will be my last comment on the subject. The analogy is inapposite. Elizabeth II IS a Queen, Johnson IS a Prime Minister and Trump IS a President. Mohammed was a self proclaimed Prophet, not a genuine one. He was a charlatan, albeit utterly brilliant and extraordinary, influential in a world historical sense. And you think that just as much as I do. So why implicitly accept his claim to be a conduit from God?

To your second point, yes I agree, it shouldn't be needlessly provocative. But now, when a teacher has been beheaded for showing them IS such a time, no?

And I don't see your beloved BBC showing them, or any other broadcaster of newspaper, for that matter. Nor do I see them being shown in British classrooms. That is why I say the Islamists are winning. They don't need to behead anyone here (for that reason at least). The job has already been done.

Trump IS a president? Could have fooled me. :teehee:

There are some who think the Prophet never even existed as an actual man. There's so much myth and legend in early Islam and so few actual facts.

Reply 192

Original post by QE2

Depends on the context, obviously.

In the appropriate context, yes. I would authorise their showing in a news or current affairs programme, but not in Bake Off or MOTD.

The context of a history teacher getting beheaded for showing them in class. As an item of world news.

It sounds like you would sanction it, (correct me if I am wrong of course) which is great. Where exactly is our disagreement in my criticising the BBC for not showing them now, or indeed ever since the Charlie Hebdo massacre took place then?

Why would you look askance at my criticism of them for doing what you have said you yourself would do?

Reply 193

Fullofsurprises

Original post by PTMalewski

I'm not scared, I'm worried.
A recent poll showed that 29% of French Muslims think that Islam is not compatible with French values.
My stance on this, is that if they don't accept the French values, they should leave the country. And if they refuse, France has a perfect right to expel them.

How many of those were born in France and are therefore French citizens? At least half according to surveys. Another quarter are citizens by other means. That's a few million citizens you are talking about expelling. Also out of interest, how is your mass expulsion to be done? Brutally, presumably and using mass internment camps and other instruments of ethnic oppression on a large scale? You really in your wildest fantasies imagine that France is going to do a Myanmar? And to what country/ies will they be expelled and how big will the fleet of human transportation barges be?

Get real.

Reply 194

Original post by generallee

The context of a history teacher getting beheaded for showing them in class. As an item of world news.

It sounds like you would sanction it, (correct me if I am wrong of course) which is great. Where exactly is our disagreement in my criticising the BBC for not showing them now, or indeed ever since the Charlie Hebdo massacre took place then?

Why would you look askance at my criticism of them for doing what you have said you yourself would do?

If you read my response, you would see that I clearly stated that it is up to the BBC and other bodies to decide what they deem as appropriate usage. It is not your (or my) place to dictate to them what they must or must not show. I'm sure you haven't missed the irony here.

However, given the levels of freedom of expression enjoyed here, I'm sure you are taking every opportunity to display the cartoons yourself. A t-shirt, perhaps? I'm sure you have them in your house and car windows. Maybe wear a sandwich board outside your local mosque? I mean, you don't want the extremists to win, do you?

Reply 195