Shots fired at Charlie Hebdo offices - France - Page 131

On January 19 2015 07:51 kwizach wrote:
You mentioned his book to support your case, and I replied on the contents of his book, which like I said is the result of his personal vendettas against many of intellectuals he mentions in it.

On January 19 2015 19:01 kwizach wrote:

It's not "exactly like Fourest" at all, but since I'm guessing you've never read her books it's not like you'd have any idea. Her work on the far right and religious extremists include some well-researched inquiries with detailed sources and references.
You didn't present any of Boniface's argument, you referred to his book to call her a "serial-liar", so I replied to you on his book. If you've read it and consider it is a book to be taken seriously, there's not much I can do to help you. I'm not sure what you want me to tell you about his personal vendettas - look up his history with Fourest (for example her participation in the trial that he lost against Sifaoui). There's no need for a legal procedure to analyze the contents of his book and recognize its utter lack of merit (by the way, he was condemned in the past for counterfeiting [deleting the names of contributors to one of his books to make it seem like he wrote the entire thing], making the "Intellectuels faussaires" title all the more ironic). On Ziegler, you can find answers to your questions on her page and in the links.

I just explained to you what happened with Dieudonné and why it's ridiculous to talk of a "double standard" because he no longer appears in the media and Fourest does (he's been condemned for incitement to racial/religious hatred and she hasn't - for good reason), but sure, it's all my "own bias". Good argument.

Using "sic" is not rhetoric, it's part of quoting accurately.

Oh really, there are "good books out there"?! Whoa, thanks for telling me! We are not discussing what's a good book, though, you were attacking Fourest's work and her books and it turns out that you haven't read any of them. Documenting yourself on her books through the lenses of the people who hate her is not exactly going to give you an objective perspective on her positions, but I'm not sure why I have to explain this to you since any work in social sciences should have taught you the importance of primary sources (I work as a research fellow in social sciences, btw).

First, you write: "when she stated that "the muslim families are asking that we do not teach the Shoah"". What she said in January 2014: "au moment du livre sur les territoires perdus de la République, on s'est aperçu qu'il y avait des familles, musulmanes ou catholiques - mais surtout en l'occurrence musulmanes -, qui ne voulaient pas qu'on enseigne par exemple la Shoah en cours d'histoire" --> "at the time of the book on the lost territories of the Republic, it was noticed that there were families, Muslim or Catholic - but in this case mostly Muslim - who did not want the Shoah for example to be taught in history class". In your original quote, using "the muslim families" makes it seem like she's talking about Muslim families in general and making the claim that they do not want the Shoah to be taught. What she actually said was that there were some Muslim and Catholic families (in the case that was being discussed mostly Muslim families, but not only) who had objected to the Shoah being taught. That's not a general (and incorrect) statement about Muslim and Catholic families, it's a specific statement mentioning those families who did speak out against that element in the curriculum.
In February 2014, making the same point, she mentioned those same Muslim families who did not want schools to teach about the Shoah or about some specific things in biology and argued that it was right not to cede to their demands just like it was right not to cede to the demands of those Catholic families who were threatening to take their kids out of school if the gender-equality aspects of the curriculum were not removed. Again, she was absolutely not saying that all Muslims families want the Shoah out of the curriculum or that all Catholic families want gender equality out of the curriculum - she's mentioning those who do take these positions to argue that their demands must not be met.
Second, you write "when she argue that there is a problem with the integration of muslim immigrants (War on Arabia, Huffington Post 2002 - without, again, anything to back it up)". The article was "War on Eurabia" and not Arabia, and the title was not chosen by her but imposed by the Huffington Post. Did she say in it that there was a problem with "the integration of Muslim immigrants"? I'm guessing you didn't read it, because no, she did not. What she actually said is that the extremist preachers who hope to convert people to their cause and their views in Europe are counting on those among the Muslim population who have difficulties integrating. She was not saying that Muslims can't integrate properly, she was saying that the principal recruits that the extremist preachers go for are among those who have difficulties integrating (and she's developed in extenso in other publications what many of the barriers to integration are, and she justly criticizes some of the policies of the French state and the racism and xenophobia which make it harder for some to integrate). The two statements have completely different meanings, and apparently you fell for the distortion which makes it look like she has something against Muslims or thinks they can't integrate.

I don't take all she says for granted.

Her explanations are pretty straightforward. You wrote that she referenced "an article where the name of Ziegler's wife, or Ziegler itself, is not referrenced...", and concluded with "Again, no rigor at all". First, she did not say Ziegler was involved in the case but his wife. Second, his wife is mentioned several times in the article, but simply with the name she had at the time of the facts, namely "Erica Deuber-Pauli". Who did you say was not rigorous?

I'm very familiar with the Boniface-Sifaoui case, yes, and I never pretended that it was Sifaoui who attacked Boniface or whatever "the other way around" is supposed to refer to, so perhaps you should stop attributing things to me that I did not say. I'm not sure why you think that the fact that Boniface is still using some of the same attacks against Sifaoui as when he first started targeting him somehow means that he's not settling scores with the guy he lost to in court in the meantime.
You seem to acknowledge that Boniface's book is poor and yet you take seriously his claims against Fourest. You're apparently oblivious to the fact that he himself is simplifying and taking out of their context quotes and what Fourest writes in order to make her look more radical or outright distort what she said.