The people at Charlie Hebdo may be a bunch of benighted lefties with only the most tenuous grasp on reality, but they sure know how to thrown a party! Nice to see folks taking it all in calmly.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Charlie Hebdo once again seeks to sooth the savage beastAugust 15th, 2016 |
 86 comments to Charlie Hebdo once again seeks to sooth the savage beast |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
The clothing ban was daft – what is wrong with Islam is not the way they dress. And the bathing costume was not much different from standard Victorian bathing costume.
The death threats are, of course, vastly worse.
Oh I agree completely. As I have said on several other forums to people who support the ban: “Oh so you want to make us more like Saudi Arabia and implements state control of what people wear based on religious criteria?”
The clothing ban is much more complicated than mere disapproval of the way Muslims dress.
1. The people of the Great Tortoise tell their women (ie women born into Great Tortoise families) – wear a pink headscarf (the mark of the Great Tortoise in which we all believe) or you will be killed, or beaten up or have acid thrown in your face.
2. A woman of the faith disobeys, saying I live in France now, and I can do what I like thanks. She has acid thrown in her face.
3. Rinse and repeat a few times.
4. Most women of the faith start wearing pink headscarves – some because of their fervent and refreshed belief in the Great Tortoise, many because they are intimidated by the collection of female corpses, beaten up ladies and scarred ladies in their community
What should the liberal, democratic, government do ?
The answer is simple. Using police methods that fully accord with all conceivable human rights conventions, presumptions of innocence, and eschewing security cameras, illegal bugging, and all that swaddling, the liberal democratic government finds, tries and convicts the hardline threateners and their enforcers; making sure to distinguish between these folk and Tortoiseist preachers who merely mouth off generally about the requirement to wear pink headscarves. Meanwhile taking care to police the ensuing riots stirred up by the hardline threateners and enforcers with exemplary restraint and consideration.
Good luck with that.
Or the government bans pink headscarves, so that almost all the women of the faith stop wearing them, and the tiny fraction that the government chooses to prosecute, of the tiny fraction that continue to wear them, get swingeing 25 Euro fines.
It is a proper role of government to prevent private coercion by punishing it. But if a significant minority of the population is set on coercion, and has an effective omerta system, it’s quite hard to prevent by traditional liberal methods. Of course it’s shocking, shocking, that a liberal democratic government would choose to ban an item of clothing. But it’s also shocking that young Muslim women are routinely intimidated as to their dress, and their behaviour.
And now, in addition to being intimidated by their men, they are also intimidated by the government – forced to either pay the fine, or stay at home. Brilliant.
Hmm. I think the Frogs would argue that
1. “they” covers two different groups of people (a) those who would like to wear pink headscarves and (b) those who would not
2. The (a)s are now intimidated a very tiny amount by having a tiny chance of a tiny fine from the goverment
3. The (b)s are now intimidated much less by the private coercers, having a significantly lower chance of being beaten up or having an acid spray in the face
So the (a)s a re being intimidated more than previously and the (b)s less. Folks will form their own judgement as to whether the net quantity of intimidation, duly weighted as to severity, has increased or declined.
France already has criminal penalties for certain clothing, because everyone knows what that clothing means.
Ataturk knew what the veil meant, and Al-Bhagdadi does too. Good on the mayor down there for figuring it out.
Alisa, it’s an easy call. If the Muzzie wimmins are going to be oppressed either way, let it be by the group which doesn’t throw acid in their faces or murder them to salvage the family “honour”.
It would not be an obvious “French” solution; but –
How about a clothing optional approach.
On beach sector any participants can wear whatever, including burkinas or nothing. That means those favoring Burkina freedom accept the nudists freedom.
Too “rational?”
Then punish private coercion, do not tell people what they can fucking well wear. Set up “report intimidation” hotlines, put adverts for then on the side of buses, along with posters warnings what will happen if you threaten women because of a religion stuck in the dark ages, be politically incorrect and advocate western modernity. There are a LOT of way to do this other than emulating Saudi Arabia and imposing sartorial rules.
I am reminded of an example often drawn by a friend of mine (though addressing an entirely different particular issue, in a completely different context).
A man, almost alone in the wilderness, is discovered cutting into the belly of a hugely pregnant woman.
The woman dies.
Is the man guilty of murder?
(Hint: “As my old Dad used to say,” circumstances alter cases. As I myself often point out, very few blanket rules really are.)
I don’t know if this is my inner 8 year old, but I laughed like hell at the man’s tackle poking out of his beard! 😀
Perry, over here at least there are zillions of “abuse” hotlines that people can call.
Yet it is reported that zillions of abused people (usually women, not always) do not report the abuse, for fear of reprisal by the abuser or from what boils down to a sense of shame and worthlessness growing out of the fact that they feel they deserve the abuse. Not to mention another, somewhat less obvious psychological fact, namely that if abuse-avoidance is no longer the focus of your life, what will you replace it with?
I don’t think that setting up all these hotlines is going to persuade a whole lot of Islamic women to leave their husbands, their families, and their religion in order to go native French (or English, or American) either.
(By all means set them up, of course: can’t hurt, unless having done so one walks away dusting one’s palms with satisfaction: There, that problem’s solved!)
It’s all very well to talk about “punishing the private coercer,” and I certainly absolutely agree that that must be done, shari’ah or no shari’ah; but the problem is catching and convicting him, or her.
Life is an engineering discipline: There are always trade-offs.™
I have complex and unpleasant thoughts on this.
I’m with Perry on the basic issue; the ban is a displacement activity, pursued because actually addressing the real problem is far too much like work. Worse, it would require our elites to confront the contradictions in their worldview. It’s far easier to place more restrictions on the women. And (probably quite as important) if we, the ignorant prejudiced peasants, no longer see the symptom of the burkinied women at the beach, we may fail to realise how our society is changing under us (the elite know how stupid we are, after all).
Perry’s list of how to address the basic problem includes “posters warning what will happen”. OK, so with what will they warn those whose formative experiences were gained under Saddam, Assad or similar? Horrible (to the PC) things like actual punishment would be needed. Lee Moore (August 15, 2016 at 4:11 pm) seems to think that a small fine will compete significantly with the “chance of being beaten up or having an acid spray in the face”. I’m all for Perry’s wish to direct the penalty at the intimidators, not the intimidated, but I think it will need more than a fine – a lot more.
Given how effete our elites are, this leaves me in an unpleasant situation, as the probable alternative to the ban is not Perry’s solution but doing nothing. Of course, there is always what we may term the Corsican solution, where the real effect of the ban is to decriminalise (just a bit) the native community’s right to present its own opinions with enough vigour that the original culprits show themselves. In one form or another, this may be coming to a place near you sooner rather than later. As a legal situation, I suppose it’s better than Rotherham, where the police arrested those fathers who tried to rescue their daughters from the houses where they were held (how obvious it must have been that the ‘racist islamophobe’ fathers were the ones to arrest, their claims a sign of the grossest prejudice). The ban is bad, disgusting, shameful because ridiculous – but not so vile as that.
Paul Marks.
What’s “bad” is a cult of people who think they have holy sanction to murder those who don’t subscribe to their own religious and cultural norms, be they rational or irrational norms or values.
THAT’s what wrong with Islam. The violence necessarily follows from this mindset.
I agree with Perry. It’s not the job of government to reduce freedoms in order to attempt to engineer social outcomes via pandering to murderous irrational (insane) cavemen. One doesn’t have a “right” to swim on the beach. One has a right to not be intimidated and threatened. If one CHOOSES to swim on the beach, and one is a muslim, then this involves the possibility of other muslims murdering you. In that case, the muslim’s problem are other muslims, not what is “allowed” or forbidden by French government. Let’s call a spade, a spade. Let the bothered muslims complain about muslims. Let it become a matter of official record.
But alas, the french (government) are fucking cowards, so…they engage in pretend time. In pretend time, muslims are not the problem, to other muslims or anyone else.
Lee,
“4. Most women of the faith start wearing pink headscarves – some because of their fervent and refreshed belief in the Great Tortoise, many because they are intimidated by the collection of female corpses, beaten up ladies and scarred ladies in their community.”
I suggest your problem’s in your last two words: they’re redolent of this modern fad of the ‘such-and-such community’ that gets taken to absurd degrees and, as applied to your Tortoise of Peace (by acid-throwing), is positively dangerous. Up until 1997 the United Kingdom had the Rule of Law; Macpherson changed that. Now there are ‘communities’ with ‘community leaders’ and their own ‘community values’ which, in the case of Britain, seem to include massive-scale rape and sexual abuse of white children, with a bit of vote-rigging as light relief. Your case is akin to attempting to stop the rape by introducing a curfew for children and fining them £25 if they break it. Far better to return to the Rule of Law and punish harshly those who fall outside it.
I have no doubt whatsoever that such an approach would impress the followers of the Great Tortoise much more than attempts to micromanage beachwear.
Lee Moore wrote,
No,
Sorry,
There’s no such thing as principles that hold until it becomes inconvenient or impracticle.
And now for something totally different.
It is just one part of the fight that needs to happen, and it needs to be as much a cultural fight (which at the moment states are actively preventing from happening) as a legal one.
So, where do these guys stand?
http://eu.ironman.com/triathlon/events/emea/ironman/france.aspx#axzz4HQxG3k15
Stonyground,
Downwind?
Allowing the state to presume what you can or cannot wear is a dangerous precedent. Somewhere down the line some little shit who truly does oppose your position will be in power and will use it, and similar precedents, against you.
As a matter of moral principal its wrong for the state to inflict sumptuary (?) laws on the citizenry.
I used to think that Cannes and the region would be the first place where Muslims would truly assimilate into France. This was based on getting to know a charming French Muslim real estate dealer who had a French Christian boyfriend. It looks like she was the exception.
Cannes has always had a strong right wing local political establishment.In spite of this the place is often overrun with really Really rich Gulf Arabs. I suppose they have no interest in exposing themselves to socialist runs places, otherwise they’d all take their vacations in Caracas.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I am not optimistic
Quite so Fyrdman. That is why it is better to fiercely enforce existing laws against domestic violence rather than expand state power into yet another area. These things always come back to bite us regardless of the original intent of the law.
As Niall says, that would require to actually grow a pair and a spine – far easier to ban something purely symptomatic and collect a fine along the way.
How much better this will all be down the road, when Muslims are a majority in France.
Ah, the diversity.
may be a bunch of benighted lefties with only the most tenuous grasp on reality
This may be the case but they’ve managed to come up with one cartoon that appears to mock both the “establishment” and the religious fascists in one go, in that sense they seem to chime well with a lot of the libertarian commentators here.
Are Charlie Hebdo really left wing? Or are they like Private Eye and just anti-establishment, but admittedly a little sympathetic to left wing causes, and as with most causes they eventually become the new establishment. [this is a genuine question]
Which was why I wrote “but they sure know how to thrown a party!” 😉
Oh yes, and with a self important incoherence that is profoundly French. I find it rather endearing.
re Nemo on communities.
I agree with you on the tiresome progressive insistence on partitioning people off into “communities.” However in the case of the people of the Great Tortoise the question of who “our women” are – ie those women who are subject to the discipline of the faith, on pain of severe punishment – is not an exercise in creating progressive circles on pieces of paper. It’s absolutely clear – if you were born into a Tortoisist famiy, you’re a Tortoisist.
In Malaysia a few years ago there was a rather good illustration. The Malaysian Constitution allows freedom of religion, as all good constitutions should. It also provides that cases concerning Muslims are devolved to Sharia courts. A Muslim woman tried to change her religion to Christian. The Sharia court held that that was not allowed. She appealed to the Supreme Court, citing the freedom of religion bit. The Supreme Court denied the appeal citing the “Muslims are dealt with by Sharia courts” bit.
Once a Tortoisist, always a Tortoisist.
I think you all are missing the significance of the last sentence in the article, quoting the head of municipal services in the town:
In other words, they’re merely banning a gang symbol whose meaning is clear to all, and which is an overt incitement to violence. And he dares to state the obvious which, however, is unmentionable by all right-thinking persons: that Islam is a terrorist movement; that the burka is a sign of allegiance to it (if not of the particular woman wearing it, then of her master); and that Islam is at war with the west. All true. How refreshing to see it stated so directly by a government official, however minor.
Fuck’em all!
Bravo, Laird!
Also from the article:
Though I’m not sure “prudish” quite covers it.
Which brings to mind another thought, which is that the women who wear these things are already imprisoned, whether they recognize that or not. With the exception of some of the silly Western ladies who seem to think it’s all just dandy and wear the things, presumably, by choice. Gah!
The one point I would add to Laird’s comment is that these are not just any old gang, not even any old terrorist gang, but a gang whose sworn objective is to kill all of us who do not submit to their will. After all, even in this lax postmodern age we do not ban gang dress or gang colors in the U.S., nor did we prohibit the skinheads from marching in Skokie, which is on the order of permitting the KKK to parade through Selma or Birmingham (can you imagine the ruckus that would ensue!).
But this is the U.S. and the U.K., merely pontificating about the laws of the Benighted French, who have perhaps not quite the commitment to personal liberty über alles that we more enlightened Anglospherians hold, though perhaps more honored in the breach, so forth.
. . .
However, someone above made the observation that banning this or that tends to come back to bite one. That is true and a very good point, as witness the results of banned “hate speech” in Canada, where it was instituted at the request of Canadian Jews in order to protect them from hateful speech directed at them.
. . .
There is one obvious advantage to letting the gang members wear their gang apparel, and that is that by their uniform shall ye know them.
I think that now I will don my Tent, bury my Uzi in it, and go stick up my bank. No one will ever know it was I, because I’m not stupid enough to start by cashing a check there. (The only downside is that I hope I don’t trip over the Tent-flaps and do a header. That could ruin the entire outing.)
Julie, on the whole, we support the laws, especially the laws against robbery, so I am going to warn every bank in, or near, Chicago, of your intentions. Robbery is B.A.D.!!! I know this because the Government takes money from me, and calls it taxes.
Coises! Foiled again!!
As long as the brave mayor and his(?) police are not fighting the actual gangs (Are they? Really asking), banning gang symbols worn by the enslaved wives and daughters of the gang members is a mere displacement activity, as Niall put it so well. This is analogous to banning the wearing of swastikas, while maintaining a relaxed attitude towards attacks on blacks and Jews.
Perfect 😀
I do hope the leftists at Charlie Hebdo have finally acquired personal weapons and trained on how to use them. I think this is still legally posible in France, if not mainland Britain (Northern Ireland is an exception). If they are still relying on Monsieur l’Etat to protect them, then they really have failed the left wing Darwin test.
Islam is an evil and horrific ideology of our enemy, an enemy who are openly and covertly at war with us on many fronts, including cultural. I’d have _zero_ problems with them being singled out for special treatment until they all get tired of the attention of law enforcement and the military and go home. I’m getting pretty tired of hearing that we have to be polite to the 99% of them because only 1% are murderers, especially from people who are supposedly on our side. Libertarianism isn’t a suicide pact, the moment adhering to those principles makes society worse because an evil element is exploiting it, I’m more than willing to bring down the hammer and smash whatever needs to be smashed.
JohnK, if I had to guess, I’d imagine that they use the services of a private security company.
Alisa:
You are more than likely correct. As leftists, they would probably not want to have anything to do with guns (until the day they are looking at the wrong end of an AK), and have a psychological need to think that someone else will protect them.
I wouldn’t be so sure about it, John – but I have no immediate way of knowing, so your guess is as good as mine.
Regardless of their personal attitudes towards guns, I presume that the laws in France prevent them from carrying them personally even if they wanted to – but I have no specific knowledge of that either.
Whether or not the police there are otherwise fighting “the actual gangs” (in Alisa’s words) is irrelevant. The “ostentatious” wearing of gang clothing is in itself an incitement to violence, which it is the duty of the police to prevent.
Wearing a burka is every bit as equivalent to hate speech as is wearing a swastika. If the police do take a “relaxed attitude” to the actions behind the symbol, that’s unfortunate but it’s something which can be remedied. The ban on the symbol is at least movement in the right direction; it is evidence of the recognition that the actions behind that symbol are indeed an evil which must be opposed. One step at a time.
I didn’t know you supported banning hate speech, Laird.
Banning isn’t necessary anyway. We are in a war for our very lives, and the burka is one of our enemies uniforms.
That ought to be enough, but with all the virtue signalling that still goes on in the face of a virulent and determined foe, it isn’t.
And our “leaders” still mouth platitudes about the peace of Islam and the necessity of avoiding “islamophobia” after each successful strike by our enemy against us.
Except it will not be just them who get singled out, it never works that way. Once you accept the state can decide what people wear on ideological grounds, it will get twisted to apply to other people. There are many ways to fight Islam as a political ideology and toxic cultural vector, but this is a terrible way.
Lee, without wanting to be facetious, what happens in Malaysia can stay in Malaysia; your argument is effectively surrendering to the ethos of the Tortoisists. I would hope – expecting would be too much – that a European superior court would uphold the simple value of freedom to choose one’s faith for oneself.
And the resistance to that simple principle among Tortoisists should be neither here nor there: they’re ‘their’ women only if the law fails to give them its protection – and that means no deference to the people of the Great Tortoise, but equality before the law. But that’s quite the opposite of what’s happened in the West, and so instead we see the battle shift to how the gangbangers clad their property rather than actually taking the gangbangers on themselves.
I seem to remember a devout RoP father allowing his daughter to drown, that being the honourable thing if the alternative is rescue by an unrelated male. The burkini must be horrendous to swim in, esp if the hood slips and is caught in a current. I think they should be banned from beaches where there are paid lifeguards on the grounds that the wearers are more likely to get into difficulties and any lifesaver rescuing a damsel will be exposed to threats to life and limb by her ungrateful nearest and dearest.
Compare this to the Swiss ban on building minarets over mosques.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/29/switzerland-bans-mosque-minarets
Very un-libertarian but somehow makes sense. If you oppose something you should also oppose it’s symbols…
Christ, there’s a lot of bollocks talked around here. The nearest the women of devout, Islamist, Muslims are going to be found to a Cannes beach is washing the floors in the back room of take-away kebab joints. A Muslim women wearing a burkini is most likely to be one doing her best to integrate with her non-Muslim companions whilst still remaining within the tenets of her faith.
Isn’t this the “becoming part of French society” we’d all regard as a positive?
That’s why the ban’s stupid. Because it’s totally counterproductive.
I would have to agree with BiS. It really is a case of competitive bad ideas.
bis, that’s got to win a prize for unintended humour: you say there’s a lot of bollocks talked and then come out with a brainfart like that? So all the young Nicoles go for a day’s frolic on the beach in their skimpy bikinis and young Fatima’s conservative family say “Sure, go spend the day with those loose women with their whorish ways, just remember to keep your arms and legs covered.” It’s not impossible, but it’s extremely improbable; how many times have you seen such a group?
I imagine a more probable scenario would be something along the lines of a whole family go to the beach, keep themselves very much to themselves, and some of the under-50 women take a dip in their burkini, while the older women remain covered head-to-foot up the beach and the men curse the Nicoles as brazen hussies for displaying so much young, nubile flesh.
Which scenario would you think more probable?
Yes, it might indeed be “a case of competitive bad ideas”, but in such a situation you have to go with the “less bad” one. The ban may be unproductive (but not counterproductive; I disagree with BIS on that, for the reasons Nemo stated), but at the very worst it sends a signal that some of us, at least, are beginning to awaken to the fact that we are actually facing a real enemy who must be opposed.
Alisa, touché; I am inconsistent. All I can say is that I value civilizational survival higher than i do libertarian doctrinal purity. And frankly, I view the Islamic invasion of the west (which is what it is) as an existential threat.
Bloke
One evening on the terrace at the Carlton hotel My girlfriend and I observed that almost all the other tables were occupied by Arabs, especially large numbers of women wearing burkas. Suddenly they all jumped up and ran for a set of cars, mostly Mercedes, jumped in a drove off at high speed.
I asked around and found out that a Saudi Royal had been gambling in the Carlton Casino, the crowd was made up of his wives, guards and entourage.
The whole thing reminded me of the scene in “A Man For All Seasons” when Henry VIII gets pissed off at Thomas More and stormed off to his boat. His Royal Entourage races after him in the same kind of panic I saw in Cannes.
The authorities in Cannes used to be quite tolerant of orthodox Muslim dress, as long as it was worn by the right customers.
“Allowing the state to presume what you can or cannot wear is a dangerous precedent.”
If I walk outside without pants, the police are going to come and have a talk with me, and probably take me away if I fail to cover up.
If I walk around shirtless, I’m fine. But, if my daughter wears pants but no shirt, she’ll suffer the attentions of the police herself.
So, in my non-Islamic society, men and women must cover their genitals, and women must cover their breasts.
Aren’t we simply talking about a matter of degrees when we decry covering faces too? Why is it acceptable to us that genitals and female breasts must be covered? How does that implicate government coercion any less than mandating the covering of faces?
It’s all a matter of gang signifying, and thus it’s what would come under First Amendment speech protection here in the USA.
Oops.
“Prohibiting”, not “mandating”.
Scenario I see more likely, Mr Nemo? Well, I live about 400m from a Mediterranean beach. And we do have a considerable Muslim population. I walk past the large & impressive mosque on the way to the sea. Very popular beach, that is. But I’ve never ever seen groups of muslims doing as you describe. Just doesn’t happen.
Some of the Muslims, go to the mosque, seem a bit like some of the christians I’ve known, go to church. There’s one uses our bar. Takes his cotton dishdash off & he’s a pair of cut-offs & a tee shirt under it. Orders himself a cold cerveza & sits down with the rest of us. Brings his sister sometimes. The one with the impressive rack & tan. I’ve seen the other one scuttling around in her hijab. So I don’t suppose she goes to the beach. Or the mosque.
And there’s the lot show up in full camel jockey rig with their women following like dogs on strings. They’re like the Pakis back in London. Don’t even know where they live. You never see them.
Maybe the guys sister would go for a burkini. But it wouldn’t show off her ink. Or maybe the hijab girl. Hang with her sis. But the ragheads? Seems unlikely.
Mr spain, that’s a lot of info to not answer the question. Would I be right in guessing you’ve had a cerveza yourself tonight? Not sure how it all applies to the issue of banning burkinis in France, in particular your earlier accusation of ‘bollocks’, ‘stupid’ and ‘counterproductive’. The acquaintances you mention don’t seem a strong case for the socialising Muslim woman trying to keep within the tenets of her faith of your other post; on the contrary, they seem to me to exemplify the contradictions of that post.
Just as an aside, how confident are you that the dress we’re describing is truly a tenet of Islam? I wonder how many outward manifestations are truly Islamic rather than cultural, or if that’s just a chicken-and-egg question.
Lee, without wanting to be facetious, what happens in Malaysia can stay in Malaysia;
Sure (subject to the question of what happens when the population of Malaysia moves here.) The behavior of Tortoisists in states with a ruling non-Tortoisist majority is quite different from their behavior in Tortoisist ruled states. (ditto Communists.)
your argument is effectively surrendering to the ethos of the Tortoisists. I would hope – expecting would be too much – that a European superior court would uphold the simple value of freedom to choose one’s faith for oneself.
Well our original point of disagreement was you objecting to my referencing the sort of people who might be intimidated, and the sort of people whose dead bodies or scars might be intimidating them, by the use of the word “communities.” The point is that while you should be allowed to choose your faith, lack of faith, lifestyle etc as you please, and in law you can (in the West) whether a group of people thinks it owns you is not, in the case of Tortoisists, a bit of vague postmodern waffle. It’s absolutely clear – once a Tortoisist, always a Tortoisist. If you have a better word that would stand in the place of “communities” in my original sentence, I’m happy to use it.
This is analogous to banning the wearing of swastikas, while maintaining a relaxed attitude towards attacks on blacks and Jews.
Not quite. First, while we may be dealing with a relaxed attitude, we may also be dealing with, as Julie so aptly put it. the ‘engineering” problem of policing certain offences. In the cases of Nazis and Jews, and racists and blacks, the crime that we’re trying to stop is violence against Jews or blacks. That means anyone who spots the crime can report it. And there’ll be physical evidence of the crime, spotted by doctors.
Intimidation leaves no marks. A threat of violence is inherently harder to prove than actual violence – there’s that lovely grey border between the freedom of speech and actual threats, in which different degrees of implication lurk. Of course for intimidation to work there has to be some violence meted out, but unlike with Jews and blacks, the object of the exercise isn’t to bop every Tortoisist woman on the head for the sake of it. The object is to control her behaviour.
I’m not saying that the police shouldn’t try to clamp down on intimidation. I’m just saying that it’s a very difficult engineering problem, at which they are likely to fail miserably, even if they are super keen on doing it. Unless they use methods that samizdata-ists would disapprove of.
So, why are we having this whole discussion in the first place? Is it just so that from the privacy and convenience of our own keyboards we can tut-tut the foolish French for so heinously cutting back on civil liberties that they ban burkhas, or even burkinis, or whatever? It’s not as though our own U.K. and U.S. Establishments and libruls want to admit and deal with the obvious.
So, here’s the thing. If this were Libertopia, there’d be no problem, because Libertarian Muslims would pose no threat to anyone and no one would dream of banning burkhas. Hey, if they want to wear Tents it’s between them and their sweat glands.
Even here, if the Muslims could be counted on to behave themselves and play well with others, nobody’d be banning burkhas.
Unfortunately, there’s a contingent of Muslims who have no problem whatsoever with assaulting, maiming, torturing, and murdering others when it suits their fancy–whether the victims are fellow Muslims, the more so if they’re not, and unspeakably the more so if there are JEWS !!! or Christians available to victimize. Or, of course, Hindus or Buddhists or Animists or Pagans or … Libertarians and other atheists … or ….
Furthermore, there is a stated objective of bringing the entire world under totalitarian Muslim rule. They know that it can be done, if the opposition is not terribly strong both physically and in moral self-confidence. They know this: They have form for it.
In the Real World of ours, it’s nice to see at least a formal gesture being made against these most un-Libertarian folks, even if it’s mostly purely gesture.
So the question is, if the French shouldn’t Ban the Burkha and the Swiss shouldn’t Ban the Minarets (good point, whoever made it),given the intransigent unwillingness of our Leaders and the blind folks who are happier with their heads in the sand, what PRACTICAL steps should French and Swedish and Swiss and German and British and American and Australian, etc., etc., folks take to deal with the problem?
It’s fairly clear that we don’t have 80 years to wait around for the Light to Dawn.
What should we typists do NOW, TODAY, to meet and defeat this menace?
There are, by the way, columnists and blogsters and radio-show types who do recognize the situation and speak out against it, and that is helpful. Every voice and every pen raised in support of civilization is valuable. But the point is to mobilize enough people to mobilize enough of the strongest in the leadership to act.
I applaud Pamela Geller in particular, for taking the fight to the streets in a manner of speaking; she has done more than just write and speechify, by a long chalk. But does anybody with more political or social authority than Julie, other Samizdatistas, and perhaps a few no-‘count Representives in our House Of, take notice?
That is the issue.
Lee, your distinction between the two cases is noted, but I’m afraid it is not all that relevant – because we know for a fact that within the Muslim communities (heh) in the West the intimidation is well-backed with actual violence. In fact, that distinction better applies to places like Malaysia and other Muslim-ruled countries, where the society is much further along regarding the need to exhibit actual violence to keep the intimidation (the implication of violence) effective.
Indeed, you are not – but what I am saying is that they should begin by clamping down on actual violence (which, for the most part, they are not doing – and that, combined with the application of actual violence, what makes intimidation effective), and only when that proves to be ineffective (which I doubt it will – but let us see), maybe turn their attention to the way people dress.
Well, mr Nemo, perhaps that’s because you’re talking hypotheticals that you know fuck all about whereas I’m living a real life. Where people are all different & don’t fit into neat little boxes to categorised. Even Muslims. Come to that, I don’t even know what a “muslim” is. Never met one. I know quite a lot of people of the muslim faith. Bit difficult not to, having connections with Ceuta – the Spanish enclave in Morocco. And the time I spent way south of Algiers.
Incidentally, my other home’s in France. Although in the very north, up on the Belgian border. But my ex-wife was from the south. Marseilles. Big Muslim population. And her father was in politics, in the FN interest. So maybe I also have a slight insight into French affairs.
Lee, my objection was not to your use of the word ‘communities’; my exact words were “I suggest your problem’s in your last two words” – your words being “their community”. I’d be surprised if anyone thought I was just criticising your English and not the underlying principle of Balkanisation. And if the population of Malaysia moved to Britain, I suspect even the BBC might have difficulty avoiding the word ‘invasion’, but if some Malaysians come to Britain I’d want them to be subject to the rule of law like anyone else in this jurisdiction. Sadly, since MacPherson, I can only express that as a want and not an expectation, and that’s what caused the police to contribute to the rape and abuse of thousands of white children.
And I mention the ethnicity of the victims not out of race loyalty, but because the Muslim perpetrators of these vile deeds did so themselves, in one case explicitly stating they wouldn’t target girls from ‘their’ community because they could expect retribution from male members of the victim’s extended family, whereas in ‘our’ community the father was threatened by the police for attempting to protect his daughter. Can’t you see the pernicious effects in the real world of thinking such as yours?
Mr spain, how ironic – and illustrative – that you should accuse me of speaking theoretically on a subject that I “know fuck all about” when you actually know fuck all about me. Otherwise I doubt you’d attempt the travel one-upmanship, but whuppy-doo: you’ve got a bit of European experience and you’ve even been south of the Med. Aren’t you just the Phileas Fogg of the 21st century?
Paradoxically perhaps, despite having lived for a couple of years in Saudi Arabia, I don’t recall meeting anyone of the muslim faith – plenty of Muslims of the Islamic faith though. And you don’t know what a “muslim” is, but you can say of Marseilles “Big Muslim population”. You’re ranting and adding nothing by it. Please stop being such an arse.
No Mr Nemo. My experience doesn’t extend to being a foreign hire working in Saudi. Merely living with a family in a dirt poor village in the Algerian boonies. Rewired a few of the houses with materials purloined from a derelict industrial building, for a pass-time. And being guested at various family events in Morocco. The performance they put on for weddings is amazing. And 20 years of living alongside London’s Turkish community.
Which is why I find your scenario ridiculous. Buckets & spades on the beach, or even beach-volleyball aren’t part of Islamic culture. You wouldn’t even see that at a Moroccan resort. Any more than you’d see a woman being stoned for adultery on an English village green. (Yet.)It’s part of a Westernised culture which a lot of nominally muslim people are quite keen on.
But Taylor’s post, above, rings a bell. Although more of the rich kids, over from the Gulf, in London clubs. All togged out in latest fashions getting legless on scotch & trying to fondle the crumpet. No doubt they’re all strict Islamic, back home. But the last thing they’d be doing is trying to impose burkas at the Gardens.
And that’s the thing. The muslims, like the Western lifestyle, want more of it. The ones who regard it as an incarnation of Satan don’t want anything to do with it.
Nemo : Can’t you see the pernicious effects in the real world of thinking such as yours?
Sadly not. But mostly because I have no idea what you’re thinking. Including, especially, what you think I’m thinking.
Wow, lots of expertise on Muslims here. I wonder if any actual Muslims are reading, while patiently awaiting for the science to be finally settled.
Mr spain, you’re being less arsey, which is welcome, but you’re still not coming across as entirely ingenuous; why do you talk of buckets & spades or beach volleyball? I certainly didn’t, though I see no reason why either would be un-Islamic – I think you’re raising what’s called a ‘straw man’. So you find my scenario (which one?) ridiculous for invented reasons. Ho hum.
My time in Saudi Arabia is far from my only experience of the Islamic world, and I can tell you absolutely that there’s a lot more to it than your experience in Morocco or London. The attitudes in Kashmir or the Karakorum are far different from the attitudes in Riyadh or Doha, and even in Bahrain I’ve heard Saudi described as ‘the forbidden land’ because of its restrictions. There is Islam and there is culture, and the former aims to control the latter. I’m glad that you seem to have dropped the silly ‘don’t know what a Muslim is’ stance, because without distinguishing between Islam and Muslims you’ll never understand any of this.
And just to go back to your original post for a moment, you know, you talk a hell of a lot of bollocks.
Lee, I’m sorry my meaning eluded you. I won’t waste any more time trying to explain.
“I’m glad that you seem to have dropped the silly ‘don’t know what a Muslim is’ stance, because without distinguishing between Islam and Muslims you’ll never understand any of this.”
Well, at least I understand that Islam is the religion & Muslims are its aherents.
WTF are you waffling on about?
And as for addressing the problem of the more dangerous followers of Islam, in the West. Strikes me they’d be a lot less of a problem if there were less of them. Doesn’t help us being so welcoming when they wish to come here.
And this is where some of the, how many Ayn Rands can dance on the head of a pin, libertarian thinking doesn’t get you very far. Because it depends on consensual libertarianism & no-one is likely to sell that to followers of a faith believe in divine authority.
I’d say the French have actually moved in the right direction with the burka ban. A good bit of honest, undisguised, discrimination. That at least deters the wife-on-a-string hardliners from settling there & might pursued some of the ones that have to bugger off. And I wouldn’t mind seeing a few more carefully targeted bits of anti-Islamic legislation. No, it’s not very libertarian. And I know all the objections & the dangerous precedents. But it’s going to be a damned sight more dangerous with many more of these people in the West. Is already. because, if nothing else, they REALLY believe in discrimination. Got a book that requires it.
Alisa:
It is possible to own handguns legally in France. It is also possible to get a concealed carry permit, but they are only normally given to people like judges. However, I think the Charlie Hebdo journalists have a pretty unarguable case for needing a perosnal protection weapon, and I cannot imagine the French state would dare to turn them down if they asked. Whether they have asked is of course the moot point.
At least this is possible in France. In mainland Britain it is not, there is simply no legal provision for a private citizen to have a pistol and concealed carry permit. In this country, journalists in the position of the Charlie Hebdo writers could move to Northern Ireland, or get their affairs in order and prepare to die with as much dignity as they can muster, whilst singing “God Save the Queen”.
Obviously, senior politicians are surrounded by heavily armed police bodyguards, but there is no element of hypocrisy there, as they do not carry guns themselves.
BIS: “And I wouldn’t mind seeing a few more carefully targeted bits of anti-Islamic legislation. No, it’s not very libertarian. And I know all the objections & the dangerous precedents. But it’s going to be a damned sight more dangerous with many more of these people in the West. Is already. because, if nothing else, they REALLY believe in discrimination. Got a book that requires it.”
I second that.
bloke in spain
August 17, 2016 at 10:06 am
Come to that, I don’t even know what a “muslim” is. Never met one. I know quite a lot of people of the muslim faith.
bloke in spain
August 17, 2016 at 6:50 pm
Well, at least I understand that Islam is the religion & Muslims are its aherents.
WTF are you waffling on about?
You can actually write those two statements only hours apart and witter on about rewiring houses from stuff nicked from an old industrial estate, and then have the gall to talk about waffling? Truly astonishing lack of awareness; there’s simply no point in trying to communicate with such an utterly disfunctional mind.
bloke in spain
August 16, 2016 at 6:02 pm
Christ, there’s a lot of bollocks talked around here… That’s why the ban’s stupid. Because it’s totally counterproductive.
bloke in spain
August 17, 2016 at 7:13 pm
I’d say the French have actually moved in the right direction with the burka ban.
Thailover @ August 15, 2016 at 7:27 pm:
There’s no such thing as principles that hold until it becomes inconvenient or impractical.
The legal system is a clumsy tool. It is practically guaranteed to fail much of the time. It is even more likely to fail when agile, adaptable malefactors exploit its weak points.
Relying on it to solve problems that have been deliberatedly created in full awareness of its weaknesses carries principle to the extreme of suicide.
Most versions of Libertarianism at least give lip service to the right of self-defense. And I haven’t run across any credible Libertarian philosophers who hold that pre-emptive strikes are never allowable. (Although there’s an unfortunate bunch for whom the Place is never Here and the Time is never Now.)
It’s not a question of abandoning a principle because it’s “inconvenient or impractical.” It’s just accepting the facts of reality, and choosing to act in accord with one’s values and their ranking in one’s value system. The purpose of principles of action is to act as guides to help us to live our lives in accordance with our values.
(It often happens that two different values are almost equally important to us, but in some situations we must choose one over the other. Those are the situation where two principles are simply incompatible.)
Principles of conduct almost always hit up against other principles of conduct that are incompatible in certain situations. Libertarianism is faced with exactly this problem when it tries to decide exactly where the line is that marks the border of each person’s inviolable “space,” in which he may act entirely according to his own wishes and will, without needing, in principle, to concern himself with how anybody else is affected by his actions.
Libertarianism usually admits that there is a point at which humans cannot live together on a basis of absolute, unconstrained self-determination of each. We rub up against each other, like it or not. And this is true even if all the people in the group are dedicated to being completely honest and honorable in their dealings with others.
Yet again everyone gets hung up on principles – for, against, and in between. But none of this is ever about principles. Principles are the how, not the what; they are not the purpose, but the means – more precisely, the optimal means to long-term* sustainable ends.
So it is perfectly permissible and even desirable to be inconsistent in adherence to one’s principles – as long as such inconsistency is part of their reexamination, and the consequent result of finding a particular principle (or even a set of principles) incomplete, inadequate, incorrect, and generally in need of adjustment, amendment, or even outright replacement.
The inconsistency becomes counterproductive when it is the result of giving in to *short-term expediency, and long-term ends be damned (note: not ‘principles be damned’, but rather long-term ends – remember, it is never about principles, it is always about the ends).
Alisa, it does not seem to me that there’s much of an argument between our two statements directly above, except over the matter of the definition of “principles” — maybe. I think you are talking about principles of action, principles of conduct. At the moment I can’t quite put my finger on the distinction, but it seems to me that my notion of “principles” is broader than yours.
But in any case, I think that your comment in fact explicates mine [focussed on the underlying principle (!) of action in the real world], and mine likewise provides some slight explication of your own.
Your final, summary paragraph seems to get at the same point as mine, when I say that “The purpose of principles of action is to act as guides to help us to live our lives in accordance with our values,” ordered according to these values’ importance to us.
I hope this is correct, because I find it most satisfactory. 🙂
I think it is, yes.
:>))
🙂
Maybe the proper French response (Egalite) would be to mandate only nude swimmers at French public beaches.Because with out the vestiges of clothing we are only naked apes. Also makes it easier to find where there are AK-47s and improvised explosive devices are.Except for the beach bags and cabanas…
And this is how the implementation of this law looks in practice – way to go fighting Islamism and upholding the values of Western Enlightenment.