When Samuel Paty was decapitated in the street in broad daylight for trying to teach his students a civics lesson, the New York Times ran with the woefully misleading headline “French Police Shoot and Kill Man After a Fatal Knife Attack on the Street”. The attack — in which the assassin who had just cut someone’s head off was shot by gendarmes — was awkwardly framed through the lens of liberal America’s anxieties over police violence, and it didn’t get much better from there.
|
|||||
|
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 |
Samizdata quote of the daySamizdata Illuminatus (Arkham, Massachusetts) · Anglosphere · French affairs · Media & Journalism · Slogans & Quotations October 29th, 2020 |
 27 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
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. |
|||||
It seems to me that one of the correct responses to this is to post these same images everywhere you damn well can. They should be up on billboards all over Paris right now. Rather than lamely posting #JeSuisProf perhaps post a few of those cartoons.
The best response to attempts to suppress freedom of expression, especially when that suppression involves murder most foul, is to yell your free expression as loudly as possible.
Maybe such a thing will offend many Muslims, and perhaps it should. But perhaps it will also shock them enough to turn in these monsters before middle school kids have to see their teacher, beheaded in a pool of blood. For Muslims that wish to preach their religion unhindered (and good luck to them) they must accept that free speech is not the right to say what you want, but rather the obligation to allow others to say what you hate so that they have the reciprocal obligation to you.
France has been extremely generous in helping out the refugees and their descendants burning up the banlieues. What they have got in response is suburbs full of Ilhan Omars. Biting not only the hand the feeds them but the throat and the balls too.
Given the clear dangers of islam, I would suggest that anyone seeking to follow that particular belief system should be subject to the same sort of controls as someone who wishes to own a gun.
Mosques could be set up along similar lines to rifle clubs. Members would need to be registered with the police, and be of good character. Any member convicted of a crime would lose their membership and their right to practise the islamic belief system. The mosques would be subject to regular police inspection, and the mosque’s management committee would be responsible to the police for any breaches of the regulations.
This seems to be to be a more than fair way of dealing with the problem of islam, but I am quite sure it would not be allowed under our human rights laws. Some people’s human rights are, of course, more important than others’.
“This seems to be to be a more than fair way of dealing with the problem of islam, but I am quite sure it would not be allowed under our human rights laws.”
That’s exactly the sort of thinking we’ve just been discussing. Islam is hate speech. Islam stirs up hatred against other communities on racial and religious grounds. (Not to mention their attitude to women, homosexuals, etc.) By letting them alone, you allow the belief to spread, the hatred to grow, until it turns to violence. Islamic hate speech leads gradually but inevitably to teachers getting beheaded in the street.
Therefore, they argue, hateful beliefs and words need to be controlled. Believers need to be controlled. Register them. Regulate them. Subject them to police inspections. Shut down any mosques that don’t toe the line, and confine themselves to acceptable, tolerable speech. If someone hears them ‘stir up hate’ against infidels, threatening or inciting violence, they can be arrested and dragged into court and made to justify their opinions. And that “seems to be to be a more than fair way of dealing with the problem of islam”.
Well, good news! Because that new Scots law, that extends the offence of ‘stirring up hatred’ to include religion, will soon mean that Islamists stirring up hatred against non-Muslims will be breaking the law, which means yes, you can report them to the police, and have them jailed for expressing their beliefs in public. And it’s been judged to be compatible with our human rights laws, too! Seems perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it?
That’s how advocates for hate speech laws feel and think. All the rest comes down to differing definitions over what the majority of society think it is acceptable to hate.
The headline I saw on Sky News I think was “Man shot in France following stabbing attack”. Stabbing attack does not tell you that someone was murdered, nor does it tell you that someone was decapitated, nor does it tell you it was a Muslim doing the beheading. Utterly shameful attempt at obfuscation. It reminded me of the headline quoted in The Stuff of Thought – “Bus Blows Up In Central Jerusalem”
If you think that’s bad, Bezos’ rag went with:
‘Perspective: Instead of fighting systemic racism, France wants to “reform Islam”’ over a photo of Macron and the tricolour-draped coffin of the murdered man. God, these people are amoral sociopaths.
I’d have put the scare quotes around “fighting systemic racism”, but of course reform of Islam is basically impossible, especially by a Western liberal democracy.
Rob. Links please.
In the context of the three barbaric murders of peaceful individuals. You appear to be suggesting that is was the Christian’s fault the Mohammedan cut their heads off?
That mode of murder does seem to be a specialty of Mohammedans. But then, there are exceptions.
“In the context of the three barbaric murders of peaceful individuals. You appear to be suggesting that is was the Christian’s fault the Mohammedan cut their heads off?”
What on Earth made you think it gives that appearance? I said “Islam stirs up hatred against other communities on racial and religious grounds.” The subject of the verb in that sentence is ‘Islam’.
I wasn’t suggesting any such thing. I was suggesting that Islam is precisely the sort of thing that is meant by the term “hate speech”, something which results in despicable acts of violence against innocent people, which is why some people think it ought to be regulated. I was simply noting that there are people on our side of the fence who feel the urge to regulate hate speech, too.
Freedom of belief and freedom of speech are difficult concepts. “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” Should Islamist nutjobs have free speech? It’s a controversial point.
APL,
I’m with NiV here. I really don’t see where you were coming from there.
Should Islamist nutjobs have free speech? It’s a controversial point.
That kinda depends on how one defines “hate speech”. Currently it seems to have a definition for too many people too close to “dissing” someone rather than a specific incitement to violence. Being obnoxious to an indiviual or group is quite a different thing from soliciting murder or actual harm.
I don’t think I’ve expressed myself too well here. Sorry. I will try harder!
“That kinda depends on how one defines “hate speech”. Currently it seems to have a definition for too many people too close to “dissing” someone rather than a specific incitement to violence.”
I agree, absolutely.
The definition in the legislation is both too broad and too vague. I don’t like it, and I don’t agree with it. But I think there may possibly be an argument for counting speech as action if the link between speech and the violent/harmful consequences is close enough. I think that’s what they intended by it – by ‘hatred’ they mean ‘violent hatred’. But if that’s the justification, I’d prefer it if the law made the connection to ‘harm caused’ explicit. Thus, I don’t entirely disagree with JohnK, although I’d make more of a distinction between the authoritarian and non-authoritarian bits of Islam.
Of course, last time I made that point, I got an argument about ‘absolute’ free speech. I’ll be interested to see if JohnK does, too.
It should be encouraged as strongly as possible. I want to know who they are, what they think, which politicians accept them, and who is with them. Woe to the society that makes its nutjobs hide.
“I want to know who they are, what they think, which politicians accept them, and who is with them. Woe to the society that makes its nutjobs hide.”
Agreed!
It is ironic that the sophisticated French are hoping for support from those “deplorable” Americans across the Atlantic, and “perfidious” English across the channel.
What support did the French give the USA in tracking Osama Bin Laden?
Been another attack in Nice today, in a Church.
Expect the National Rally(Front) to do even better in the next Presidential election, Macron was a compromise candidate to keep Le Pen out last time round.
The dog that didn’t bark, if it’s true the French are complaining about the AngloAmerican Media’s lack of sympathy, would be interesting to know how the German Media is covering the issue?
@NIV: if you think the Scots hate speech law/ end of privacy law is going to be used against Islamists, Ive got a bridge to sell you
We (and by we I mean western society in general) have spent the last 50 years carefully teaching the Islamic world that if they attack us we will generally just make a sad face and give them some (more) money. There have been exceptions of course, but they have been notable precisely because they have been so exceptional.
If we taught them the other lesson, namely that the fire burns each and every time you stick your finger in it, we wouldn’t need to restrict the practice of Islam or make Islamists register – they would be afraid to pull their primitivist BS because of the certain and disproportionate backlash they would face.
Once upon a time the Homo Occidentis was a creature feared and respected across the globe.
Yes they should. We know they are ‘nutjobs’ by the broadcast of their ‘nutjob’ ideology. And of course, we know they are dangerous ‘nutjobs’ by their pronounced inclination to assault and murder at the ‘drop of a ghutrah‘ in the name of that ideology. ( A disposition which conventional wisdom claims has no nexus with the Mohammadan ideology, a position I have cause to think, you subscribe and, one extra point of disagreement between us. )
No it’s not. But if one is unable to distinguish between ‘free speech’ and assault and murder. We’ve got a bit of a problem.
Agree. But exposing an ideology for its inherent barbarity, to the light of scrutiny is not the same as ‘being obnoxious’. Not the same at all.
Your comment history.
@fattomato
Quite.
The issue here is not freedom of speech, but the more or less complete freedom of action that the “tiny unrepresentative minority” clearly have which extends to mass rape of children and disgusting savage homicidal attacks on genuinely peace loving citizens.
The more “unrepresentative” they are, the more my freedom of speech (and freedom to do so much else) seems to diminish.
Muslims are creating for themselves various ghettos across France, and in other countries. They are also starting to dominate prisons. Doesn’t sound too smart should a Marine le pen flavour government come to power.
The turkeys are voting for Christmas but are too arrogant and stupid to see it. Must be all that first cousin marriage.
NiV:
I am afraid that you and I both know that the despicable “hate speech” laws which the Scottish National Socialists are proposing will not be used against islam. The fact that the “justice” minister bringing the law forward is a muslim tells us that. The Scottish politico-legal establishment will not take on islam. Indeed, they profess to “celebrate” more islamic immigration into Scotland, ostensibly on the grounds that diversity “makes us stronger”, in reality because they see more voters coming their way.
Also, I cannot see any way to distinguish between authoritarian and non-authoritarian bits of islam. It is an authoritarian belief system to its core, even down to mandating death to any believer who comes to his sense and decides to leave. Any muslim who seems to challenge the authoritarian dictates of islam, such as the unfortunate shopkeeper in Scotland a couple of years back, can expect to be killed by a more absolute believer. The murderer has not been rejected by mainstream islam, indeed in Pakistan he is lauded as a hero.
APL:
I do think I make that distinction. Apart from anywhere else I think I made that quite clear in the second sentence you quote from me. I should perhaps clarify what I meant there…
I don’t regard saying straight what Islamism is as being “obnoxious” but merely stating the truth and not just that but a truth that Islamists would actually agree with themselves! A very recent example is the ravings of the former Malaysian PM about how Muslims have the right to kill milions of French people. So saying things contra that sort of attitude is hardly “obnoxious”.
Having said that I do also believe it absolutely shouldn’t be against the law to hold or express genuinely obnoxious views. Just being able to say nice things about people or groups or countries or whatever is not free speech it is “allowed” speech which is not the same thing at all.
“@NIV: if you think the Scots hate speech law/ end of privacy law is going to be used against Islamists, Ive got a bridge to sell you”
It was used against Abu Hamza.
But to some degree, if it’s what you believe in, it’s up to you to use it. Do what the leftists do. When you see incitement to violence and stirring up hatred on religious grounds by jihadists, report it to the police. Run a campaign to get the Koran and the Bible banned as hate speech. Do something about it. And then either they’ll be forced to clamp down on Islam by their own rules, or they’ll be exposed as hypocrites, or they’ll draw the boundaries more sharply so that everyone can tell where the line is, and they can’t gradually move it without anyone noticing.
“If we taught them the other lesson, namely that the fire burns each and every time you stick your finger in it, we wouldn’t need to restrict the practice of Islam or make Islamists register – they would be afraid to pull their primitivist BS because of the certain and disproportionate backlash they would face.”
That teaches them that the one with the biggest guns gets to call the shots. That you can only get people to behave if you force them. That using force to make people behave the way you want is justifiable. You hurt them and hurt them and hurt them until they do whatever you want to make the hurt go away.
But they already know all this – it’s how their society works. All the flogging and stoning and chopping off hands and heads is all about hurting people until they do what you tell them. Heaven and hell are intended to make people obey by threatening them with magical eternal torture if they don’t follow your rules. And it’s what terrorism is about – their idea is to get us to stop interfering with their society by hurting us in ways we can’t prevent, and threatening worse, so that we’ll back off and do what they say.
Sometimes people do give in to threats and violence. But if they realise that giving in only encourages more threats and violence, they can go the other way, and reverse the lesson. The more you hurt them, the more they resist. The harder you hit them, the more determined they become to fight back. It escalates into a war, in which lots of people get killed, before it reverts to the former situation of resentful obedience to the application of force. It’s how all the world used to be.
Bullies beget bullies. If you make them do what you want by threatening force, that’s how they learn the world works, and that’s what they do to everyone else. They learn that you get power over others by fighting, by getting bigger and nastier weapons, by making threats. They believe that everyone is either a master or a slave, a victimiser or a victim, and they would much rather be the former rather than the latter. They learn that this is how the world is, and the only way it can be.
It’s the authoritarian mindset – you make people do what you want with force, and society is ruled by the most feared. It’s exactly the mindset we’re trying to cure.
“A disposition which conventional wisdom claims has no nexus with the Mohammadan ideology, a position I have cause to think, you subscribe and, one extra point of disagreement between us.”
Again, I have no idea how you could interpret my words to think so! I’ve said many times that orthodox historical Islam is authoritarian and violent. So is the old Testament, from which Islam gets it, and to which it seeks to return.
But modern Muslims are not orthodox, just as Christians and Jews don’t behave like it says in the Old Testament. The orthodoxy in both cases has been ‘corrupted’ and changed, although it claims not to be. We are seeking to eliminate the threat of Islam by doing to it what we did to the Christian Church.
We can’t break their will militarily, we can’t eliminate them without becoming monsters ourselves, the only long-term solution is to convert them. We buy them off – teach them that trade and cooperation and tolerance gets them wealth and technology and comfort. We do business with them, and socialise with them, and gradually our culture permeates theirs, as the rough corners are rubbed off.
The difference between us, and the reason for our disagreement, is that you have the authoritarian mindset that force and threat is the only thing that works, and I have the libertarian mindset that freedom is the only thing that works. They have to be free to choose the best way to live, they have to choose the Western free-market culture and the cultural free market voluntarily, not because they’re forced to, but because it is to their advantage to do so.
They have already gone far down that road, but there is still a long way to go. It will probably take another century to fully make peace, and a century or two after that for Islam to disappear entirely, as Christianity is doing. Cultural change moves slowly, on a scale of generations. I have faith in the power of Western culture to seduce them and convert them. But I accept that you don’t.
“I am afraid that you and I both know that the despicable “hate speech” laws which the Scottish National Socialists are proposing will not be used against islam. The fact that the “justice” minister bringing the law forward is a muslim tells us that.”
It can be used against the old orthodox Islam. It’s no threat to the new corrupted Islam.
As I said, the English version was already used against Abu Hamza. Bold assertions that they will never do so are already falsified by history.
“Also, I cannot see any way to distinguish between authoritarian and non-authoritarian bits of islam.”
You just make it voluntary.
If people want to pray five times a day bowing down towards Mecca, they can. If they want to wear modest clothes, they can. If they want to give to charity, they can. If they want to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, they can. If they want to restrict their diet to avoid ‘ritually unclean’ foods like pork and alcohol, they can. If they want to refrain from making pictures of living things, they can. If they want to preach to the unbelievers, and try to convert them, they can. And so on.
90% of Islam consists of rules and rituals that it is no bother at all if people choose to follow them voluntarily. The problem parts are those on jihad and apostasy and obedience to authority. Somebody can choose to live what they see as a virtuous life, and in so far as it only affects themselves, we have no right to tell them no. The only parts we have a problem with are those where they compel or hurt others who haven’t so consented.
Everybody should be free to choose. And that means they can choose Islam. We won’t stop them. We won’t dictate their beliefs. Just so long as they don’t take the same choice away from anyone else.
There’s been a curious silence from BLM given that one of the poor victims was a black woman. Perhaps she was the wrong sort of black or maybe the killer was not white enough. Or perhaps not all black lives matter equally. Who can tell?
Lol!
That amuses me, coming from the advocate of State force to confine innocent citizens in their homes and curtail their freedoms.
This from the individual who happily uses demagoguery to spread fear and dread among the population to achieve his goal. Your Libertarianism is pretty thin gruel.
1. They should choose all those things before we are subjected to their tender ministrations.
2. And how many ordinary people have to die a barbaric death before Mohammedans en mass conclude:- ‘You know, killing these people that don’t share our faith ain’t quite what it was when we were killing those stupid Jews in Medina back in Mo’s day’. It just ain’t worth the bother. Let’s try just getting on with them instead.
How many? How long? Give us your best estimate.
Because it seems to me that the Mohammedans haven’t changed their tactics in fourteen centuries. They are unlikely to now.
I reject the very conceam of ‘hate speech’ & am totally in favour of Islamic nutters having the right to free speech as public self- identification is the very best way to find out who they are.
@NIV: I disagree with your analysis WRT to Abu Hamza, he was jailed in the US, not the UK, and jailed for participation in acts of murder and terrorism and not for his hate speech.
My beef, with the Scots Hate Crime Bill, beyond being some Woke inspired anti-offensive speech nonsense, is the fact that it removes the right to privacy aswell as undermining the right to freedom of expression.
“And how many ordinary people have to die a barbaric death before Mohammedans en mass conclude…”
And how many people have to die a horrible death from Covid-19 before you change your ways?
Islamic terrorism in the UK has killed an average of 6 people per year – that’s less than seasonal influenza! The world’s greatest recent terrorist atrocity was 9/11 – Covid-19 was killing more than that in both the UK and USA every two to three days! (Although there are the Truthers who will tell you 9/11 was a plot by the government (or the Jews, or alien lizard people) to seize power and totally faked. Steel doesn’t melt at that temperature! Bin Laden was framed!)
My position is that restrictions can sometimes be justified to prevent people killing other people. If there’s an argument for restricting freedoms because of Islamic terrorists killing 6 per year, then there’s certainly an argument for restricting freedoms because of unwitting bioterrorists killing 60,000!
One person is dead in France, and you want the state to put the boot down on this dangerous minority. 65,000 dead in the UK, 220,000 dead in the USA, and you think any restrictions at all are an outrage, a transparent grab for totalitarian power.
All authoritarians believe in freedom for themselves. The distinguishing difference is in whether they all want freedom for the people they despise.
“I disagree with your analysis WRT to Abu Hamza, he was jailed in the US, not the UK, and jailed for participation in acts of murder and terrorism and not for his hate speech.”
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri#Arrests,_charges_and_imprisonment
@Perry de Havilland (London)
I reject the very conceam of ‘hate speech’ & am totally in favour of Islamic nutters having the right to free speech as public self- identification is the very best way to find out who they are.
I used to use the expression “let a thousand flowers bloom” with respect to my advocacy of free speech. I did until I found out the origin of the expression. It actually came from Mao Zedong in China (though being a poverty oppressed Communist regime Mao actually only aspired to “let a hundred flowers bloom”, apparently even the aspirational epithets of communists are impoverished.)
The premise of the campaign was that after his brutal oppression of intellectuals he found there were no new ideas in the country, so he brought up this idea of “say whatever you like to get new ideas to move us all forward.” Which they did, lots of them.
Unfortunately Mao, being Mao, then went on to use these ideas that people had expressed with his encouragement to find who were the traitors to the revolution and subsequently had them shot.
Now, I am not advocating what Mao did here, but there is a lesson to be learned, if you encourage people to speak, even things you don’t want to hear, you quickly find out who your enemies are, who the dangerous people are. I don’t advocate having them shot, but at least you know when to watch your back.
One aspect of homicidal mass murdering manics that we can take advantage of is that they can’t STFU.
I have just seen images of the Islamist protests outside the French Embassy in London. What really boiled my piss was someone holding up a placard with the slogan, “Respect Our Prophet” – a demand and implied threat – not a polite request.
I might consider respecting their prophet when their pals aren’t beheading women at prayer in a cathedral in Nice. Respect is earned. It is not demanded. Dhimmitude is not respect but fear. Well, fuck ’em if that’s their schtick.
I said it made me very angry, very angry but still they have the right to express such ideas and whilst a part of me would like to see the camel-fuckers burned at the stake* the better angels of my nature know that isn’t right.
*I have had much darker thoughts as well. Much darker and all doable with things I have in my shed.
The New York Times is not written by Muslims.
The evil (and it is evil) that the New York Times, and the rest of the “mainstream” media, represent is not from Islam.
The idea that the New York Times (and the class of people it represents) just do not want free discussion of Islam is wrong – they do not want free discussion of ANYTHING.
In reality the “liberal” elite is totalitarian to the very core.
They stand for one “correct” opinion being allowed – on any matter.
True they are not, strictly speaking, Marxists – but they stand for totalitarianism that is just as “total” in its tyranny.
It is not Islam that controls the education system (the schools and universities), the “mainstream” media (such as the New York Times), and the bureaucracy – including the CORPORATE bureaucracy of “Woke” Big Business.
I am not blind to 14 centuries of conflict with Islam (indeed I was punished last year for the absurd non crime “crime” of “Islamophobia”) – but Islam is NOT the real problem of the New York Times and the rest of the “liberal” elite.
It is they, the TOTALITARIAN “liberal” elite (NOT Islam) that is about to take over the United States and destroy the West. Crushing all free competition (especially from small business) and utterly exterminating the freedom of choice (in all things) of ordinary people – using such things as “Covid 19” or “the environment” as EXCUSES for the tyranny that the establishment elite has been longing for (and actively planning) for many years.
If Islam does, at some point in the future, take over the lands that are presently the West – it will NOT be because Islam has destroyed the West. The totalitarian “Woke” forces are destroying the West – and they would do so whether Islam existed or not.