Debate : Freedom of speech

[Xyga]

In regard or weapons and political correctness.

It's just that you know, for years now in my country, people who've claimed the most being deprived of their freedom of speech are far-right racist fucks, who say the worst things about political correctness, leftists, democracy, women, ecologists, arabs, jews, etc.

The reason why hate speeches (well the specific ones at least) and weapons are forbidden in my country as in most European countries, is that we know by experience what is a true menace for our citizens, what leads to the worst to happen to them, and what is necessary to protect them and their dignity, whatever their origin, religion or opinion.

Tell me again how free firearms and free racism speech are better for society. I want to understand how logical and rational it would be to defend freedom of speech, or just freedom as a whole, and at the same time let any racist/psycho/extremist walk our streets with a gun.
The freedom of speech, we have it, massively, we just try not to let the enemies of that freedom steal its meaning. We have to watch clearly who is claiming that right because if we don't then it's the same as shooting ourselves a bullet.

What idiot trusts the wolf whining he's being 'oppressed' because he's not allowed to walk freely among the sheep ?

We've had enough wars and shit in our history, on our soil, within our families, please don't forget your racism and your weapon as you leave, good bye.

If one thing isn't right, it's that our forces lack sufficient means to stop weapons and dangerous people from crossing our borders.
And if particular individuals are in danger, we shouldn't leave just a couple of average cops with tiny guns and no one to guard the entrance of the building.
And note I'm stating: cops. Cops/military are the ones entitled to carry weapons, exceptions are made for hunting rifles and people with a license and that's it. Our society's choice.

[nosorrow]

I don't live in Europe, so I can't know exactly what's going on there. I do know that the unemployment thing is a big part of it. It doesn't help that many of these refugees/immigrants are on welfare. So, I can see how the far right can easily say "we don't have the money to take care of our own, and these people are dragging us down more".

But it really seems like you have a culture within a culture. They don't want to assimilate, and they don't seem to like you. And the more of them there are, the more riots, rapes, bombings....whatnot, seems to take place.

Is it such a bad thing to say "well, we should stop letting these people in, for a while". And have longer prison sentences for people who do "terrorist like" activities?
Rather than being so afraid of offending someone? Does Europe owe them housing and welfare? I don't get it.

Is this so xenophobic and racist? I think Political Correctness is going to kill us.

I mean, from what I understand, Sweden has made it somewhat illegal to criticize Immigration http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-new ... net-speech. That is...that's insane. If I'm wrong, please correct me (this could be far right fear mongering). But it seems like the far left is handing over their countries and freedoms on a platter, to people who don't even appreciate it.

I want to be tolerant...but these folks seem like some of the most intolerant people on the planet. We just feel bad for them, because they are the minority. For now, anyway. Maybe some folks should take a trip to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, and see if they have the same sympathies when they get back.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Also, this is not directed at anybody here in particular, but liberals as a whole need to lay off the pipe in their fear of the far right. The National Front in France is not as scary as your favorite pussified American newspapers would let you believe. Of course, entities like the New York Times et al. are politically correct out of fear for extremists muslims, so they will say generic stuff like "freedom of speech is attacked" instead of "freedom to criticize islam is attacked"; all it shows is that terrorism works - if Western journalists are afraid to mock islam, it isn't because they are so polite, but because they don't want their heads chopped off, simple as that. They SHOULD be afraid, that is totally legitimate, but please admit it instead of saying that you will not print out Mohammed caricatures "out of respect for muslims" or other "journalistic integrity" bullshit.

[nosorrow]

But the far right ones are on the rise in several countries yes that' a fact.

You are part of the problem. You're being a "useful idiot", it is called. Head in the sand, etc. The far right isn't the problem and hasn't been for decades. There is a muslim terrorism problem that has been going on for years and it's not because of the far right. There is a very large number of muslims who want nothing to do with the Western world, in fact they hate our guts. No left-wing angelism will change that reality nor conspiracies involving far right* parties who will never get elected.

*The media saying a party is "far right" doesn't necessarily means it is extremist; you have to read the platform. Wanting to curb immigration and increase assimilation doesn't equal being "far right".

[neorichieb1971]

The world is now a smaller place. The people of Islam can see what the west is doing by watching youtube or reading facebook.

If your religion is insulted by only 1% of its members, thats an army.

If I drew and sold pictures of your moms/sisters taking it up the ass I think you would be equally offended. I have doubts you would be saying "its your freedom of speech". I wouldn't expect to be gunned down but I would be expecting a punch in the face.

Lets not forget that where we think the "Below the belt" line should be isn't always where someone else thinks it is.

[ED-057]

I was not brought up to deliberatly provoke and poke fun at different people, I was brought up to respect them just the same as anyone else

That's too bad. An important lesson that every child should learn is that just because someone pokes fun at you does not make them your enemy.

People have no more need to be afraid of Islam in general then they do of Christianity or most any other major religion (or political movement, or culture, etc.) in general, as most people the world over aren't so fanatically devoted to one thing that they'd be willing to kill for it at the drop of a hat; it's the hard-line, intolerant, fundamentalist interpretation of any faith (or other institution) that some percentage of them subscribe to which leads to problems, and the best thing anyone can do to fight such inclinations is to live and display a superior alternative without fear for all to see.

I see your point, but you are ignoring the fact that there are countries where Islamic beliefs have turned into oppressive laws. And these discriminatory, inhumane, and otherwise terrible laws are overwhelmingly supported by the people living there, with no popular efforts to bring their country into the 21st century by removing these laws.

Or maybe the people don't like this situation? But because THEY DON'T HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and can't even question whether women should be treated like shit under the law because of some religious mumbo jumbo, we will never know.

Earlier this week, I read on gulfnews that a legislator in Kuwait was charged with illegally "insulting the nation" for merely suggesting that maybe they don't need a law banning alcohol.

So I really don't understand in that respect why people support freedom of speech to the extent where they know more life will be lost.

1) We are mortal. We all die.
2) If you give up freedom of speech, you give up power over your own life. You will end up in a tyrranical shithole country where you can't question anything without being arrested.
3) I won't hold my tongue for the sake of murderers. Murderers don't deserve such consideration.
4) Victim-blaming is wrong.

So far from your brain dead "Shia vs Sunni" (never mind Shias are less than 0.5% of Syria's population and decreasing rapidly) narrative, no, Syria was just fine until the blood thirsty leaders of the west, who none of us can seem to hold accountable thanks to media-driven "democracy", decided to play geopolitical chess with.

The comment was about Muslims killing each other. You can't credit that entirely to outside agitators. There's a reason the combatants are divided along sectarian lines (the relevant factions being the Sunni and the Alawites in this case). I mean seriously. "Syria was just fine?"

[Xyga]

But the far right ones are on the rise in several countries yes that' a fact.

You are part of the problem. You're being a "useful idiot", it is called. Head in the sand, etc. The far right isn't the problem and hasn't been for decades. There is a muslim terrorism problem that has been going on for years and it's not because of the far right. There is a very large number of muslims who want nothing to do with the Western world, in fact they hate our guts. No left-wing angelism will change that reality nor conspiracies involving far right* parties who will never get elected.

*The media saying a party is "far right" doesn't necessarily means it is extremist; you have to read the platform. Wanting to curb immigration and increase assimilation doesn't equal being "far right".

^ typical copy-pasta of the far right speech, forcing opinions of their detractors to comfort themselves and shut mouths.

- "head in the sand" -> no, that's just what you and your parties believe, we just don't react with blind hatred like you do, because we think of all the people, Muslim or non-Muslim arabs, who don't want this shit and will suffer from more hate and rejection than ever. You, people agreeing to the far-right's speech, just don't want to accept many of them reject terror and would like to live in peace like normal citizens, it's easier for you to label the whole minority as evil, because it justifies your actual racism.
There's no 'angelism' on our side, that's again a typical far-right crap speech. Instead of angelism there's thinking about the fact they're human species too and by far not all terrorist demons. Whether we like them or not, whether they like us or not, people who didn't do harm have every right to live just like you do. You don't have any right though, to judge an entire ethnic group just because of what it is.
Immigration control should be done yes (well it is), but with impartiality and no paranoid state of mind. We just need tighter and more efficient control, that's all. And no we are not invaded by hordes of hirsute Muslims and black-African people, in case you didn't notice unlike your parties always pretend with made-up figures, immigration has always been stable at least in France, and many people are not accepted. We just shed crocodile tears when we watch them drown in the Mediterranean sea though. Guess that's enough for inferior people, heh ?

- "we say it's the far right's fault" -> that's not what we say, the phenomenon is complex, linked to our own history, to the conflicts in the middle-east, the responsibility of the phenomenon is multiple and shared by everyone; Muslims from immigrant background who never adapted to our society, ourselves who never treated them as equals to begin and greeted them with ever-growing alienation and racism over the decades, which they responded with even more contempt and hatred; just like you far-right people do, you share the same thoughts pattern, it's a fucking rat race.

I've watched the far-right change its speech and communication methods over the years, trying to make people forget about their atrocious racist and authoritarian ideas, toning-down their speech, white-washing their parties by removing the skinheads and swastikas from the demonstrations and meetings, all to become 'acceptable' as potential government parties, look 'republican and democratic'.
But they could never hide who they get their ideas and support from, their long-time strong relationships with holocaust revisionists, white supremacist, their WW2 collaborationist heroes, all the shit that makes them different from republican democratic parties.

When you've lived with them over decades, as neighbors, or co-workers, and seeing their parties in the news, you know the difference, you see what makes them fundamentally racists and just as blood-thirsty people as terrorists are. When you talk with them and there's not a hint of nuance in their speech: everything is black or white, an eye for an eye, only brutal and radical solutions to problems, the objects of their hatred (arabs, jews, leftists, civil servants, feminists, etc) permanently dehumanized, seen as inferior beings and whose lives and circumstances are not worth considering. "of course since they are all monsters we are right to hate them".

Now assholes like those two murderers are like a fucking godsend to far-right nuts, what they did is the perfect boost France and many other European countries needed to fall for good into an anti-Muslim frenzy.
If you're an muslim/arab or whatever that just even looks close ethnically, it's over for you. You hate extremist and terrorists for what they do to your people and religion, when you just wanted to live your life in Europe without a care for this shit ? Too late, nobody will care about you and your circumstances: you are now in the eyes of everyone a highly suspicious person likely to be a terrorist monster.
Torrents of anti-Muslim rage on the internet since yesterday, this is the European 9/11, R.I.P rational thinking.

[nosorrow]

^ typical copy-pasta of the far right speech, forcing opinions of their detractors to comfort themselves and shut mouths.

^ typical copy-paste of the champagne socialist speech, forcing opinions of their detractors to comfort themselves and shut mouths. We play the same game apparently.

[Xyga]

^ typical copy-pasta of the far right speech, forcing opinions of their detractors to comfort themselves and shut mouths.

^ typical copy-paste of the champagne socialist speech, forcing opinions of their detractors to comfort themselves and shut mouths. We play the same game apparently.

^ missed. neither socialist nor from any political side since there are none that I approve of. just rational and humanist-individualist. things people like you don't understand.

[BulletMagnet]

Tone down the personal attacks here, I'd rather not lock this if I don't have to.

Back to the discussion at hand...

I see your point, but you are ignoring the fact that there are countries where Islamic beliefs have turned into oppressive laws.

No question that this happens (it's frankly a national disgrace that we let places like Saudi Arabia get away with as much as they do on the human rights front while demonizing others), but as I've said elsewhere the religion itself is not the direct cause of the government's crackdowns but instead serves as a culturally powerful excuse to justify them, the same as the Bible was once used to justify the Crusades and Inquisition. On a semi-related note, while I wasn't arrested for it, I and others of a similar mindset were accused by one of my nation's own leaders, not too terribly long ago, of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" by disagreeing with his administration's policies; obviously not quite the same thing, but in any case one certainly doesn't need a "spiritual" excuse to attempt to stamp out dissent, though it can (and did, at the time) certainly make the process easier.

[Mischief Maker]

Going on a bit of a tangent here, but the WWII internment of Japanese Americans wasn't just pure racism operating in a vacuum, but actually had a triggering event. Are you familiar with the Niihau Incident?

Remember that in the long run the internment was considered one of the darkest hours for democracy in the US.

[Wenchang]

One could say any ideology isn't responsible for anything bad that happens, because actually individually human beings are the causes and not abstract ideologies. So you could say the same thing about Nazism for example. But that type of rhetoric is stupid frankly. It doesn't dispute the fact that certain ideological movements, certain cultures, certain other categories of people you want to look can be more or less prone to violence relative to other groups at a certain period of time(just like hundreds of years ago Christians were more illiberal and violent than Muslims).

People like to describe religion as being used as an "excuse," "justification for," or a "mask" for violence, but shrink from the idea that part of the reason those religions might have appeal is exactly because they("they" meaning either direct scriptural teachings from a religion or more crucially the historical/cultural context that a particular religion's adoption and practice come from) justify things like dominating women, committing violence against others, etc.

Why don't you look at opinion polls around most of the Muslim world(there are exceptions, like Kazakhstan, but there are virtually no immigrants from Kazakhstan are there?). Support for things like death to apostates, criminalizing homosexuality, restricting women's freedom, are quite higher than you'll find most other places. It's not a case of backwardness or poverty either, as many Arab Gulf countries minus Yemen are quite economically well-off, and also extremely illiberal, not just in terms of government policies, but in terms of popular beliefs.

This is the context to view such events. One can draw one's own conclusions about what should be done, but I wish people would stop saying this bullshit about how what happened in France(and what is actually only one of a number of Muslim terrorist attacks in France since the 1980s) being a result of discrimination against Muslims(how come Hindus and Sikhs are never involved in this sort of terrorism in the West, there are an awful lot of them in the U.K. for example? But they cause almost no problems.), of Western interventions in the Middle East, or whatever ham-fisted theories. Muslims are not treated any worse than Sikhs, Hindus, non-Muslims Black Africans(they're probably treated better than most of these groups but I'll put that aside), and Muslim countries are not the only ones which have been attacked, intervened in, etc. by Western countries. This is about Islam and immigration, no need to pussyfoot around that.

Some people keep making comparisons between fascists and whatever current nativists movements in Western Europe, and also between supposed Muslim victims to Jews in Europe. The irony in this that the greatest source of anti-Semitism and violence against Jews in France, and in many places in Western Europe(in Germany it's even more obvious) are exactly from the Muslim immigrants, not from the right. But this is an uncomfortable reality that people don't want to mention. I'll be even more provocative and suggest that far right violence in Western Europe is trivial.

All of this talk of a supposed backlash against Muslims, where are the instances of this in France? Outside of some vandalism, there has been virtually nothing. France isn't Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Greece, etc. There are not skinheads roaming around attacking people. France isn't even the United States(where there were a bunch of attacks against Muslims and non-Muslims of Middle Eastern or South Asian background after 9/11). Muslims in France are safer than 99% of Muslims worldwide. There are more Muslim attacks against Jews than attacks against Muslims from ethnic Frenchman, that despite the fact that French are the majority, Muslims are a minority, and Jews are a tiny minority. All of this talk about the right is purely political. People keep saying these attacks are a godsend to the far right. Projecting much? My impression from the media is that people of liberal persuasion are determined to bring the "far right" into this when it's obvious they are irrelevant. It's good to be sensitive to minorities(at least as long as it doesn't lead one to hold illusions), but a reaction that responds to events like the ones in France by putting attention on far right groups, and speculating about imaginary atrocities from them, is either irrational or incredibly cynical.

So far from your brain dead "Shia vs Sunni" (never mind Shias are less than 0.5% of Syria's population and decreasing rapidly) narrative, no, Syria was just fine until the blood thirsty leaders of the west, who none of us can seem to hold accountable thanks to media-driven "democracy", decided to play geopolitical chess with.

This is the type of shallow narrative that is told an awful lot, particularly among people of liberal-left persuasion. I'd go along with it if it were true(because I don't support Western interventions either, nor do I have any illusions about their purpose, I've read Chomsky and Blum etc.). But it's wrong. Syria was stable because it had an iron-fisted dictator who prevented the local population from engaging in intense inter-ethnic violence. The Assad family are part of a history of Alawite rule in Syria that goes back precisely to the French colonial rule there, it was not a result of the natural inclinations of the population, as Alawites are a tiny, unpopular minority. Same type of story in Jordan. Same thing in the countries of the Gulf. The Saudis, the sultan of Oman, all of them are descendants of collaborators with British and French colonialism("geopolitical chess") from a century ago. In other words, the most stable countries in the Middle East are precisely the ones controlled by ruling families/classes/ethnic groups who rule because of past connections to the West. Countries where this isn't the case are less structured and more prone to power struggles.

None of this justifies Western intervention, but it's misleading to suggest the Middle East was a stable place that only became destabilized because of Western intervention. This is false. Western intervention has played a part(a particularly large part in Iraq for example, but again, that's not even close to the whole story), but it's not the only and in many cases not even the main cause. Furthermore, one could make just as much(maybe even a stronger one?) that the areas that are most stable in that area of the world are stable largely because of past Western interventions. Reality is more complicated than good guy vs. bad guy narratives.

[Xyga]

This is the context to view such events. One can draw one's own conclusions about what should be done, but I wish people would stop saying this bullshit about how what happened in France(and what is actually only one of a number of Muslim terrorist attacks in France since the 1980s) being a result of discrimination against Muslims

Again that's not what we say, we say it's a part of the problem, is the meaning of the word 'part' too hard to understand for people ?

A history of colonization that ended with a war, failed cultural integration after a immigration wave our state encouraged, stupid planned ghetto-ization in concrete state-funded suburbs, ever-growing differences and defiance from both sides that gave birth to both religious radicalization and racism (both ways), successive irresponsible governments not giving a fuck about the situation, aggravation of the situation and greater division pushed by the middle-east conflicts where our govs participate to the US's fuckery, and financial crisis, loose immigration and border control, etc etc.
There are several things over time that created a favorable terrain for the appearance of radicalization and terrorism in France,

It's always the same, far-right tries to make us say things we didn't, like we're ignoring reality.
You mistake retenue for ignorance.

The irony in this that the greatest source of anti-Semitism and violence against Jews in France, and in many places in Western Europe(in Germany it's even more obvious) are exactly from the Muslim immigrants, not from the right. But this is an uncomfortable reality that people don't want to mention.

Again, like we don't know about that, but yeah they come from the far-right too, say what you want about figures, that doesn't make any of them right. And I've heard Jews saying the most horrible things about Muslisms as well.
None of them, muslims, far-right, jews, vomiting their hate, are right.

I'll be even more provocative and suggest that far right violence in Western Europe is trivial.

Anders Breivik says hello.

All of this talk of a supposed backlash against Muslims, where are the instances of this in France? Outside of some vandalism, there has been virtually nothing. France isn't Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Greece, etc. There are not skinheads roaming around attacking people. France isn't even the United States. Muslims in France are safer than 99% of Muslims worldwide. There are more Muslim attacks against Jews than attacks against Muslims from ethnic Frenchman, that despite the fact that French are the majority, Muslims are a minority, and Jews are a tiny minority. All of this talk about the right is purely political. People keep saying these attacks are a godsend to the far right. Projecting much?

Since yesterday physical aggressions on arabs on the streets, shots fired at mosques and even a small explosive, racist graffiti on their walls.
I happen to have Muslim neighbors, a young couple with two babies, who can't stop crying in rage against the murderers and fear of what will happen to them.
PS: just confirmed: they have no place to return to in Algeria if things go bad. What would you do with them since they're Muslim and therefore bad people ?

What people supporting the far-right speech wish for, is to be given the right, absolution, to let their hate loose and label all muslims as a menace, not just the radicals, fanatics and terrorists, and get rid of them, get them all out of the country, no matter how many inside their numbers are nothing like we fear about.
Do I even need to explain why this is wrong and indeed racist and fascist thinking ?

[Wenchang]

Again that's not what we say, we say it's a part of the issue, is the meaning of the word 'part' to hard to understand ?

Some people in this thread have been more strong than you have, and are suggesting such concerns are more than "part" of the issue. Some have also said Islam is not part of the issue. I don't agree with them.

A history of colonization that ended with a war, failed cultural integration after a immigration wave our state encouraged, stupid planned ghetto-ization in concrete state-funded suburbs, ever-growing differences and defiance from both sides that gave birth to both religious radicalization and racism (both ways), successive irresponsible governments not giving a fuck about the situation, aggravation of the situation and greater division pushed by the middle-east conflicts where our govs participate to the US's fuckery, and financial crisis, loose immigration and border control, etc etc.

I don't particularly disagree with this summary.

Again, like we don't know about that, but yeah they come from the far-right too, say what you want about figures, that doesn't make any of them right. And I've heard Jews saying the most horrible things about Muslisms as well.
None of them, muslims, far-right, jews, vomiting their hate, are right.

Far right people may have horrible views on Jews and many other things, but the reality is they are not the ones bombing restaurants, shooting random Jewish citizens, etc. There's no equivalence here. What people do is the important thing. Plenty of people in my personal life might secretly have negative views about me but if they're not doing anything about it, I don't care!

Anyhow, aside from wanting to be provocative, I brought up the issue of Muslim violence against Jews specifically because I was seeing the tired and annoying analogies to Nazism and World War 2. The actual reality in much of Europe makes those analogies inappropriate(analogizing Jewish bankers with suicide bombers being particularly strange).

Anders Breivik says hello.

One extreme case from Norway, which had nothing to do with Muslims.

Since yesterday physical aggressions on arabs on the streets, shots fired at mosques and even a small explosive, racist graffiti on their walls.
I happen to have Muslim neighbors, a young couple with two babies, who can't stop crying in rage against the murderers and fear of what will happen to them.

What people supporting the far-right speech wish for, is to be given the right, absolution, to let their hate loose and label all muslims as a menace, not just the radicals, fanatics and terrorists, and get rid of them, get them all out of the country, no matter how many inside their numbers are nothing like we fear about.
Do I even need to explain why this is wrong and indeed racist and fascist thinking ?

Again, actual "far right" groups of the sort you describe are trivial in numbers in France. Most members of these "populist" parties want little more than immigration restrictions and a lessening(if not a complete abandonment) of EU projects. It's perfectly true to say that Muslims are likely to be more uncomfortable and that there will be more vandalism after these attacks. But guess what, that's exactly the sort of arguments people suggesting immigration is not the greatest thing in the world, will make. Nothing that's happening proves them wrong. Incidentally massive explusion of a large group of people isn't a particularly easy thing to do.

PS: just confirmed: they have no place to return to in Algeria if things go bad. What would you do with them since they're Muslim and therefore bad people ?

I'm not advocating getting rid of the Muslim population or claiming most Muslims are bad. I'm not advocating very much beyond viewing things realistically. I am merely saying that at the present point in time Muslims(and more particularly Muslims from Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia) are more likely to carry out these sorts of terrorist attacks(among many other social problems) than other groups. One should not ignore this because it makes one uncomfortable.

I'm not French so what the French do with their immigration policy is their business. I however, do not accept the view that is becoming increasingly common that wanting to restrict immigration policy in some way(but not actually eliminating immigration) is inherently racist or terrible. And I'll frankly state that I'm actually in agreement with those who want to decide their own immigration policy rather than following EU rulings 100% as some movements in the Netherlands(which have called for little more than eliminating loopholes that allow serious criminals to avoid deportation) have called for. On immigration in France though, I don't have a strong opinion on it either way. Immigration isn't an inherently good or bad thing. Circumstances determine the social impacts. In such a reality talking frankly about the circumstances is advisable.

But people should be realistic about it. Japan and Korea have immigration policies which would make the La Penn's blush, and there may be some negative consequences to those policies, but overall Japan and South Korea are not miserable, fascistic places.

Actually getting rid of the Muslim population(besides small instances like deporting serious criminals or something) is another matter, not one I would support. But the idea that such a policy is likely to be carried out in France is not plausible. Nor do I support discrimination against Muslims, I do however object to the attention this issue gets over other ones. Like, for example, discrimination against Jews by Muslims(which is not a trivial issue btw, the amount of Jews leaving France for Israel is not low and the amount of Jews who express the opinion that they fear being discriminated against is very high), which you may know about, but which frankly is an issue much less cared about overall. French society should do what it reasonably can to prevent discrimination against Muslims. But it shouldn't be distracted by imaginary discriminations over actual issues.

[nosorrow]

One could say any ideology isn't responsible for anything bad that happens, because actually individually human beings are the causes and not abstract ideologies. So you could say the same thing about Nazism for example. But that type of rhetoric is stupid frankly. It doesn't dispute the fact that certain ideological movements, certain cultures, certain other categories of people you want to look can be more or less prone to violence relative to other groups at a certain period of time(just like hundreds of years ago Christians were more illiberal and violent than Muslims).

People like to describe religion as being used as an "excuse," "justification for," or a "mask" for violence, but shrink from the idea that part of the reason those religions might have appeal is exactly because they("they" meaning either direct scriptural teachings from a religion or more crucially the historical/cultural context that a particular religion's adoption and practice come from) justify things like dominating women, committing violence against others, etc.

Why don't you look at opinion polls around most of the Muslim world(there are exceptions, like Kazakhstan, but there are virtually no immigrants from Kazakhstan are there?). Support for things like death to apostates, criminalizing homosexuality, restricting women's freedom, are quite higher than you'll find most other places. It's not a case of backwardness or poverty either, as many Arab Gulf countries minus Yemen are quite economically well-off, and also extremely illiberal, not just in terms of government policies, but in terms of popular beliefs.

This is the context to view such events. One can draw one's own conclusions about what should be done, but I wish people would stop saying this bullshit about how what happened in France(and what is actually only one of a number of Muslim terrorist attacks in France since the 1980s) being a result of discrimination against Muslims(how come Hindus and Sikhs are never involved in this sort of terrorism in the West, there are an awful lot of them in the U.K. for example? But they cause almost no problems.), of Western interventions in the Middle East, or whatever ham-fisted theories. Muslims are not treated any worse than Sikhs, Hindus, non-Muslims Black Africans(they're probably treated better than most of these groups but I'll put that aside), and Muslim countries are not the only ones which have been attacked, intervened in, etc. by Western countries. This is about Islam and immigration, no need to pussyfoot around that.

Some people keep making comparisons between fascists and whatever current nativists movements in Western Europe, and also between supposed Muslim victims to Jews in Europe. The irony in this that the greatest source of anti-Semitism and violence against Jews in France, and in many places in Western Europe(in Germany it's even more obvious) are exactly from the Muslim immigrants, not from the right. But this is an uncomfortable reality that people don't want to mention. I'll be even more provocative and suggest that far right violence in Western Europe is trivial.

All of this talk of a supposed backlash against Muslims, where are the instances of this in France? Outside of some vandalism, there has been virtually nothing. France isn't Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Greece, etc. There are not skinheads roaming around attacking people. France isn't even the United States(where there were a bunch of attacks against Muslims and non-Muslims of Middle Eastern or South Asian background after 9/11). Muslims in France are safer than 99% of Muslims worldwide. There are more Muslim attacks against Jews than attacks against Muslims from ethnic Frenchman, that despite the fact that French are the majority, Muslims are a minority, and Jews are a tiny minority. All of this talk about the right is purely political. People keep saying these attacks are a godsend to the far right. Projecting much? My impression from the media is that people of liberal persuasion are determined to bring the "far right" into this when it's obvious they are irrelevant. It's good to be sensitive to minorities(at least as long as it doesn't lead one to hold illusions), but a reaction that responds to events like the ones in France by putting attention on far right groups, and speculating about imaginary atrocities from them, is either irrational or incredibly cynical.

So far from your brain dead "Shia vs Sunni" (never mind Shias are less than 0.5% of Syria's population and decreasing rapidly) narrative, no, Syria was just fine until the blood thirsty leaders of the west, who none of us can seem to hold accountable thanks to media-driven "democracy", decided to play geopolitical chess with.

This is the type of shallow narrative that is told an awful lot, particularly among people of liberal-left persuasion. I'd go along with it if it were true(because I don't support Western interventions either, nor do I have any illusions about their purpose, I've read Chomsky and Blum etc.). But it's wrong. Syria was stable because it had an iron-fisted dictator who prevented the local population from engaging in intense inter-ethnic violence. The Assad family are part of a history of Alawite rule in Syria that goes back precisely to the French colonial rule there, it was not a result of the natural inclinations of the population, as Alawites are a tiny, unpopular minority. Same type of story in Jordan. Same thing in the countries of the Gulf. The Saudis, the sultan of Oman, all of them are descendants of collaborators with British and French colonialism("geopolitical chess") from a century ago. In other words, the most stable countries in the Middle East are precisely the ones controlled by ruling families/classes/ethnic groups who rule because of past connections to the West. Countries where this isn't the case are less structured and more prone to power struggles.

None of this justifies Western intervention, but it's misleading to suggest the Middle East was a stable place that only became destabilized because of Western intervention. This is false. Western intervention has played a part(a particularly large part in Iraq for example, but again, that's not even close to the whole story), but it's not the only and in many cases not even the main cause. Furthermore, one could make just as much(maybe even a stronger one?) that the areas that are most stable in that area of the world are stable largely because of past Western interventions. Reality is more complicated than good guy vs. bad guy narratives.

Nailed it.

Xyga sees "racists and fascists" everywhere. The dangerous "racists and fascists" in this day and age are the muslim extremists, which number in the millions.

[Herr Schatten]

I'll be even more provocative and suggest that far right violence in Western Europe is trivial.

Anders Breivik says hello.

As does the NSU. I wouldn't exactly call that trivial.

[Wenchang]

As does the NSU. I wouldn't exactly call that trivial.

I won't argue the point I'll re-word my statement then. Far right violence against Muslims in France is trivial. I'll also add that, if far right violence was such a threat in France for example(which I don't think it is at the present time, nor do I think it is in Germany) then I would modify my view from not having a particularly strong view on Muslim immigration to France to one that thinks immigration to France is on the whole, bad.

[neorichieb1971]

After reading all of this I wouldn't be surprised if more attacks happened anytime soon.

I'm not against freedom of speech, but if I know that someone is sensitive I won't provoke them into a frenzy because I would feel the cause of it.

It will be interesting to see if the 8-10 employee's of Hebdo are actually replaced straight away and if their cartoon's/illustrations point fun at Islam straight off the bat. If that did happen, I would expect these people to be under guard 24/7 and I would also hazard a guess their freedoms would be diluted anyway.

Personally I don't see any winner here. It may come to the point where you car gets machine gunned for having a "Je suis Charlie" sticker in the window. You just never know.

[Xyga]

Anders Breivik says hello.

One extreme case from Norway, which had nothing to do with Muslims.

Nothing to do with muslisms ? Are you serious ?

Again, actual "far right" groups of the sort you describe are trivial in numbers in France.

Quite the opposite, they've been more active and popular than ever since the beginning of Hollande's presidency, also the only far-right party (registered and running for elections) has scored number one in the European election, and are favorite for the 2017 general election.

I'm not advocating getting rid of the Muslim population or claiming most Muslims are bad. I am merely saying that at the present point in time Muslims(and more particularly Muslims from Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia) are more likely to carry out these sorts of terrorist attacks(among many other social problems) than other groups. One should not ignore this because it makes one uncomfortable.

They are big in numbers, comparatively retarded on a social and cultural perspective, mostly miserable and poorly educated, hanging to obscurantist religious views, because they are ruled by assholes and many of their countries when not governed by tyrants are attacked by the US and their lackeys.
Protip: we Europeans were just like them only a few hundred years back, after living centuries of Dark Ages.
Doesn't make us, them, anybody, less human.

I'm not French so what the French do with their immigration policy is their business. I however, do not accept the view that is becoming increasingly common that wanting to restrict immigration policy in some way(but not actually eliminating immigration) is inherently racist or terrible.

Neither do I, it's true that some people make that mistake, but they're not a majority. I think most people understand badly managed immigration is a mistake and they're definitely not all racists.

Actually getting rid of the Muslim population(besides small instances like deporting serious criminals or something) is another matter, not one I would support. But the idea that such a policy is likely to be carried out in France is not plausible.

Are you sure about that ? Because those far-right people have been demanding a deportation since their founding.
And if not that now, since they've toned down their speech, then what ?
If they claim the right to point at Muslims and freely, publicly say out loud all the bad they think about them, what's the next step ?
If they come to power do you really believe they will do nothing ? There will be deportations and restrictive laws against Muslims and not just them by the way, against jews, gays, gipsies, leftists, that's for sure.

I do however object to the attention this issue gets over other ones. Like, for example, discrimination against Jews by Muslims, which you may know about, but which frankly is an issue much less cared about overall.

Jews get discriminated against by muslims and far-right just as much, and that's not all, if you lived in France you would know of another phenomenon that I would translate by 'casual antisemitism' or 'soft-antisemitism', because it's not just muslims or right-wing nuts who don't like jews.
Also there's a thing that gets on the nerves of many, many people in France, it's the constant overreactions coming from them and their local religious institutions, associations, and public personalities.
Basically just say the word 'jew' and they'll jump at your throat in a rage, spitting 'antisemitic!!!!'. They're completely paranoid and seeing nazis everywhere. There's also the permanent reference to the holocaust that's getting on the nerves of people with time, with of course never ever even one word for the other people who were not jews and died in the same camps.
They're acting stupid, not realizing the people around them aren't necessarily antisemitic, but pissed off about being seen as such.

Xyga sees "racists and fascists" everywhere. The dangerous "racists and fascists" in this day and age are the muslim extremists, which number in the millions.

Your thinking is just as radical and extremist, you just lack enough sense to understand why, you may not be the attacker now, but people like you will be happy to enroll in army and militias the day our fallen democracies will declare all-out war against their designated enemies. But heh people like you number in the millions today, what a bright future we have ahead of us!

[Wenchang]

Nothing to do with muslisms ? Are you serious ?

Sure.

Quite the opposite, they've been more active and popular than ever since the beginning of Hollande's presidency, also the only far-right party (registered and running for elections) has scored number one in the European election, and are favorite for the 2017 general election.

I am aware of the European elections. I blame the EU and the Eurozone mostly. It does strike me btw that you use "right" and "far right" interchangeably. But I'm not interested in arguing how to label a political party or whatever, I'm interested more in actual events.

They are big in numbers, comparatively retarded on a social and cultural perspective, mostly miserable and poorly educated, hanging to obscurantist religious views, because they are ruled by assholes and many of their countries when not governed by tyrants are attacked by the US and their lackeys.

The bolded part is pretty naïve if you ask me. Illiberal Islamic practices have plenty of popular support, the idea that such illiberal views and practices are maintained only by tyrants is just not accurate. It might actually be the case that many tyrannical Middle Eastern governments for example are not as illiberal as their populations. I would recommend this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... al/361791/

Protip: we Europeans were just like them only a few hundred years back, after living centuries of Dark Ages.
Doesn't make us, them, anybody, less human.

I made the same point already. Also, I have not (and I'm not aware that anyone here has) suggested that some group of humans are less human.

Are you sure about that ? Because those far-right people have been demanding a deportation since their founding.
And if not that now, since they've toned down their speech, then what ?
If they claim the right to point at Muslims and freely, publicly say out loud all the bad they think about them, what's the next step ?
If they come to power do you really believe they will do nothing ? There will be deportations and restrictive laws against Muslims and not just them by the way, against jews, gays, gipsies, leftists, that's for sure.

Well we're both speculating on what seems plausible in the future and I'm not sure what more could be done to convince one side or the other. I will however state just as an aside that I consider your suggestion that discrimination against Romani people could happen after an election of a nativist candidate to be plausible, but for the other groups, I don't think there's much evidence. I think much of what you're saying is paranoid.

I think this is starting to get past the point though. Whatever the ills of the alleged rise of the alleged far right, it still strikes me as odd to bring them up at all in the context of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. If people want to use these events to try to bash their least favorite political party because they think that party is otherwise likely to have increased popularity, fine. I don't like it, but fine. But all of this supposed concern about a huge rise in violence against Muslims from these far right groups, I don't buy it. It's too contrived. It's almost as if some people want it to happen(certainly I don't think such violence would increase the support for right-wing parties in France, that's too cynical for me to buy).

Jews get discriminated against by muslims and far-right just as much,

When is the last time a Jew was killed by a right wing person in France? I don't think this is exactly an everyday occurrence. Much less something like the Toulouse and Montauban shootings, where I don't think there are any equivalent incidents from far right groups(who we're supposed to believe are enormous threats) in decades. But I can find more equivalents among Muslims attacking Jews. Like the 1982 bombing of a Jewish restaurant, or the bombing of a synagogue two years before. Or the numerous smaller events. There we have much more precedence, unless you're talking several decades in the past.

and that's not all, if you lived in France you would know of another phenomenon that I would translate by 'casual antisemitism' or 'soft-antisemitism', because it's not just muslims or right-wing nuts who don't like jews.

Sure. I never said anti-Semitism doesn't exist in Europe of all places. I merely made the point that the most serious instances of it are from Muslims, not far-right groups.

Also there's a thing that gets on the nerves of many, many people in France, it's the constant overreactions coming from them and their local religious institutions, associations, and public personalities.
Basically just say the word 'jew' and they'll jump at your throat in a rage, spitting 'antisemitic!!!!'. They're completely paranoid and seeing nazis everywhere. There's also the permanent reference to the holocaust that's getting on the nerves of people with time, with of course never ever even one word for the other people who were not jews and died in the same camps.
They're acting stupid, not realizing the people around them aren't necessarily antisemitic, but pissed off about being seen as such.

This seems like a different topic, but what you're describing certainly exists. Norman Finkelstein describes it as the "Holocaust Industry."

[nosorrow]

Xyga sees "racists and fascists" everywhere. The dangerous "racists and fascists" in this day and age are the muslim extremists, which number in the millions.

Your thinking is just as radical and extremist, you just lack enough sense to understand why, you may not be the attacker now, but people like you will be happy to enroll in army and militias the day our fallen democracies will declare all-out war against their designated enemies. But heh people like you number in the millions today, what a bright future we have ahead of us!

You are delusional. I don't know how to use a firearm and, honestly, I am afraid of anything that has to do with guns. Believing that skinheads and klansmen or the "religious right" are the real danger instead of muslim extremism is the very definition of being a useful idiot. You are worrying about a future theoretical war with "people like me" while our institutions and core democratic beliefs are being assaulted on a daily basis right now, in the present, by muslim extremists.

[Bananamatic]

If I drew and sold pictures of your moms/sisters taking it up the ass I think you would be equally offended. I have doubts you would be saying "its your freedom of speech". I wouldn't expect to be gunned down but I would be expecting a punch in the face.

it's more like gunning someone down because someone said your waifu is a slut

[system11]

The world is now a smaller place. The people of Islam can see what the west is doing by watching youtube or reading facebook.

If your religion is insulted by only 1% of its members, thats an army.

If I drew and sold pictures of your moms/sisters taking it up the ass I think you would be equally offended. I have doubts you would be saying "its your freedom of speech". I wouldn't expect to be gunned down but I would be expecting a punch in the face.

Lets not forget that where we think the "Below the belt" line should be isn't always where someone else thinks it is.

My mom and sister are things that actually exist.

Religion is based around imaginary things. Let's say I decide to believe the sky is green, and start to take great offense from anyone suggesting otherwise. Should everyone just STFU about it being blue in case they upset me? It's ridiculous.

In other news - French police have stormed the terrorists, blown the fuckers away and saved the remaining hostages. Best possible outcome. Rainbow 6 level righteousness.

[trap15]

One of the terrorists escaped by disguising themselves as a hostage.

[Xyga]

Sure.

Are you deliberately ignoring his many diatribes against Islam and the hallucinating 'Eurabia' conspiration theory ?

They are big in numbers, comparatively retarded on a social and cultural perspective, mostly miserable and poorly educated, hanging to obscurantist religious views, because they are ruled by assholes and many of their countries when not governed by tyrants are attacked by the US and their lackeys.

The bolded part is pretty naïve if you ask me. Illiberal Islamic practices have plenty of popular support, the idea that such illiberal views and practices are maintained only by tyrants is just not accurate. It might actually be the case that many tyrannical Middle Eastern governments for example are not as illiberal as their populations. I would recommend this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... al/361791/

I didn't imply they disapprove of their leaders, but where's the hope for a brighter society when the establishment of your country are all retarded obscurantist assholes making sure there's no room for criticism and opposition anyway ?

Protip: we Europeans were just like them only a few hundred years back, after living centuries of Dark Ages.
Doesn't make us, them, anybody, less human.

I made the same point already. Also, I have not (and I'm not aware that anyone here has) suggested that some group of humans are less human.

Well read again, there's one person there who's stated he considers muslims inferior already. Also used the term 'subhumans'.

It does strike me btw that you use "right" and "far right". But I'm not interested in arguing how to label a political party or whatever, I'm interested more in actual events.

I think much of what you're saying is paranoid.

Think this is paranoia all you want, I know parties like the FN very well, their many xenophobic and anti jews/islam/gays/left statements and supports, I've seen and heard them all my life, they are 100% far-right racist and fascist nuts there's no doubt about it, it's mostly younger people who don't know that party's history, or dishonest people who deliberately make efforts to hide that reality, or just clueless ones who look only at that party's new fabricated respectable image say "how dare you say we're far-right and racist!" when they have been so much for decades.
Amnesia, ignorance of the past and lack of discerning, also adherence to their actual funding ideas, I can't fight against all that, I can just resist and say who the fuck are we kidding ? I call a cat a cat and a far-right party a far-right party.

When is the last time a Jew was killed by a right wing person in France?

Sure. I never said anti-Semitism doesn't exist in Europe of all places. I merely made the point that the most serious instances of it are from Muslims, not far-right groups.

Not since the many deported under the rule of collaborationist Pétain during WW2 as far as I know (FN have been long-time pétainists and revisionists by the way. But the far-right in France definitely isn't just FN, the most incredible dumbfuck outside of their structure is Eric Zemmour, a jew, who supports the idea Pétain actually helped the jews. Lol.)
back to racist crimes, the last crimes perpetrated by far-right activists were against a young leftist (a skin destroyed an antifa kid with a punch) and much worse the murder of Brahim Bouarram who has been drowned in the Seine by skinheads during a 1st of May march of the FN in 1995. There aslo the case of Ibrahim Ali who was shot by skins near a FN protest in Marseilles the same year.
in regards to jews killed by muslims, there was several cases like the atrocious Gang of Barbarians in 2009, then there are a few other I don't remember but not always proved 'antisemitic' murders. You have to understand that every time a jew is killed in France it is considered an antisemitic crime, which doesn't make traceability of such crime easy.
The fact that we don't have recent murders of jews by far-right activists doesn't constitute an excuse for them, it's not because there haven't been recent crime in that configuration that they're not antisemitic people.
You could say the same in regards of far-left activists, they haven't killed a businessman in ages, but that doesn't make them less commie would-be gulag wardens.
The day any extremists movement comes to power, even if they didn't kill anybody yet, do you really think they won't harm the people they consider their enemies and relentlessly shower with hate ?
I'm not as confident as you are on that topic.

You are delusional. I don't know how to use a firearm and, honestly, I am afraid of anything that has to do with guns. Believing that skinheads and klansmen or the "religious right" are the real danger instead of muslim extremism is the very definition of being a useful idiot. You are worrying about a future theoretical war with "people like me" while our institutions and core democratic beliefs are being assaulted on a daily basis right now, in the present, by muslim extremists.

Well you know we will never agree on anything so what's the point ? To me you are fantasizing like all right-wing nuts about a muslim extremist invasion, there's been one atrocious terrorist attack just now yes, and it's not the first one in our history (on a daily basis? lol) but that doesn't make my country nor Europe a civilization under siege. You just say the same paranoid things all right-wing nuts say.
Check the 'Mediator' case of dangerous drug, it's estimated that it has caused the death of about 500 persons just in France (maybe much more) and the Servier laboratory hid the fact they knew of the dangers. You know what ? I consider the people who do such things a much greater menace inside our borders than any terrorist nuts.
Call me what you want, coming from you it just makes me laugh.

[nosorrow]

Hey xyga, you know who's more anti-Jew/gay than the Front National? Muslims.

[Xyga]

Your sentence implies the FN are anyway. If that's a contest about which 'camp' is more of a den of intolerant imbeciles, go ahead and tell me more. I'm always enjoying watching people trying to make points in defense of the worst ideals and people.

[nosorrow]

They are not, of course, this is pure media caricature, as they (i.e. many members of the media, opposing political parties) try to keep the FN on the sidelines. The TV tastemakers would rather have parties that espouse Trotsky's philosophies on the panel than giving Marianne Le Pen more visibility.

[Xyga]

They are not, of course, this is pure media caricature, as they (i.e. many members of the media, opposing political parties) try to keep the FN on the sidelines. The TV tastemakers would rather have parties that espouse Trotsky's philosophies on the panel than giving Marianne Le Pen more visibility.

That's the conspiracy theory of the FN they've been repeating ad-nauseam for decades, which is of course complete bullshit as the regulatory institution controlling the speaking time of every party is very strict, each party has got the same amount of exposure time allowed and it has been proved every time the FN just got to speak as much as the others.
And TV prefering Trotskysts ? BWAHAHAHAHAH !

EDIT: and that's Marine Le Pen, not Marianne. The latter's the name of one of our nation's symbol, don't insult it.

[nosorrow]

Michel Drucker never wanted to have Marianne Le Pen on his show but he has had Olivier Besancenot at least once.

Alright, enjoy your angelic "vivre ensemble" illusions, I'm out.

[Xyga]

So did many people who despise racism, Michel Drucker is jewish, you'd expect him to greet the FN like they never vomited revisionist statements ?

Please teach me again about "vivre ensemble".

Please more ! You're hilarious !

-----
@Wenchang; EDIT in reaction to your own EDITs

I think this is starting to get past the point though. Whatever the ills of the alleged rise of the alleged far right, it still strikes me as odd to bring them up at all in the context of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. If people want to use these events to try to bash their least favorite political party because they think that party is otherwise likely to have increased popularity, fine. I don't like it, but fine. But all of this supposed concern about a huge rise in violence against Muslims from these far right groups, I don't buy it. It's too contrived. It's almost as if some people want it to happen(certainly I don't think such violence would increase the support for right-wing parties in France, that's too cynical for me to buy).

No that's not my point and you know it. The far-right was brought up because we were talking about what made the bed of muslim terrorism in France and the far-right's parties and groups who are one of the many reasons. So it's pretty much on-topic.
The far-right has been spamming the 'muslim terror' invasion paranoia a long time, and labelled Islam and all Muslim as the 'new Nazi', which I reject because this is simply not true and because stigmatization of an entire ethnic group is pretty much the Nazi method. This is the second reason why we brought up far-right in the discussion, and as we have free speech, I refuse to let them get away with accusing the entire muslim population of France.

I don't think this is exactly an everyday occurrence. Much less something like the Toulouse and Montauban shootings, where I don't think there are any equivalent incidents from far right groups(who we're supposed to believe are enormous threats) in decades. But I can find more equivalents among Muslims attacking Jews. Like the 1982 bombing of a Jewish restaurant, or the bombing of a synagogue two years before. Or the numerous smaller events. There we have much more precedence, unless you're talking several decades in the past.

Of course this does not compare, and again that shouldn't be justification for hate speeches because of what they lead to.
Muslim extremists have killed people just now and in our recent history in France so they are bad of course, far-right parties haven't killed anybody in our recent history so they are not bad...? Is it that simple for you ?
If you don't believe far-right when it's there before our eyes, nor their hateful ideas, nor that they can massacre people, so what was WW2 about for us here in western Europe ? Are you going to say fascists and nazis were neither far-right nor racist ?
If current parties and groups that share similar ideals, similar rhetoric, have relations with revisionists, racist and white supremacist theorists, aren't obvious enough to you, I can't help.
If muslim terrorists are the assholes of today, I predict the far-right in Europe will be the ones of tomorrow, as violence is the ultimate goal of both of them.