Shots fired at Charlie Hebdo offices - France - Page 132

Read this before posting. Stay civil.

As the news continues to develop, please remember no NSFW images or video. Thank you.

Yoav

United States1874 Posts

January 19 2015 21:41 GMT

#2621

On January 20 2015 04:39 Djzapz wrote: I think the point I'm trying to make is that perhaps Islam doesn't have as many "moderates" as I thought... Or perhaps the "moderates" are not as reasonable as I had hoped...

Can we have the indignant French people in here again complaining about outsiders making generalizations about a group?

Nebuchad

Switzerland11784 Posts

January 19 2015 21:45 GMT

#2622

On January 20 2015 04:39 Djzapz wrote:
It pisses me off because of how little importance they give to human lives.

You can draw lots of conclusions like that. Kill 17 people in France, 1.5 million people in Paris. Kill 2000 people in Nigeria, "a few hundred" people in Paris the next week. Is that giving importance to human lives?

Lives taken in France matter more in France because they're more real, they're closer to us. We can relate more. As people who live on the other side of the planet and have a negative opinion of the newspaper in the first place, they relate less. Can we conclude something based on that? Yeah, we can. But then we have to conclude a lot of things about a lot of people...

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

January 19 2015 21:46 GMT

#2623

On January 20 2015 05:30 Djzapz wrote:

Show nested quote +

I kind of make that dubious link myself and I feel the need to explain myself.

I don't think the people protesting against a drawing are supporting terrorists directly, though I'm certain that some are. I'm arguing that they're supporting violence indirectly by showing how little they care about human lives. The sheer scope of the protest, to me, suggests (but does not prove) that many "moderate" Muslims feel excessively strongly about the "prophet". This does not mean in anyway that they support terrorism, but then again, many Muslims support all kinds of fairly radical things and I don't need to make a list.

It used to be that when people cited papers which showed how culturally different Muslims are to us, even those who live in the west, I ignored them more or less, assumed they had some kind of anti-muslim agenda or something like that. But there are numbers out there like 0% of Muslims in Britain, according to Gallup, think homosexuality is morally acceptable. 40% of Muslims in britain think that the UK should adopt the Sharia law (needless to say, that "law" is not exactly reasonable by our standards, and parts of it can be be said to be quite extreme measures)...

So no, protesters don't necessarily support terrorism at all, but they're quite... uh... passionate and intense about it. And maybe being that passionate makes the community a breeding ground for some even more passionate people, kind of how the crazy abortion clinic bombers come from passionate and intense christian churches... Now this is an hypothesis and perhaps it's wrong but it seems like a reasonable assertion based on recent observations. Like I said before, what this makes me think is that there are fewer actual moderates than I personally previously thought.

How little they care about human lives? I don't know. Let's be honest for two seconds : when you learn that there have been bombings in Palestine resulting in the death of X civilians, are you really affected? Do you really care about those people? Same goes when there are random religious fights somewhere in the world. Same goes for the recent Boko Haram massacre. If the answer is yes, then why are we not protesting in the streets like we did for CH?
The Muslims who support the death of the people at CH see them as ennemies, ennemies of their culture, of their religion, they probably see them as an embodiment of the Western world that made them suffer in the past and that laugh at them now. But I think there's something to be mentionned here (along with the already brought fact that Arab countries are generally unstable and governments and various groups try to use the hatred towards the West for their own profit, thus favorising it), that is that "moderate" Muslims in these countries have little to no national exposure, which translates into little to no international exposure. Why did you see the images of these protesters in Egypt or Morocco? Because the national medias and government promoted these protests, thus making them bigger internationally. As an example, I heard on France Inter (public French radio, relatively neutral politically) that in Chechnya the government declared the day of the protests public holliday, officially called for people to protest and payed for people from the countryside to come in the capital city. And then they inflated the figures of the protest.
Now I'm not saying that every Muslim in the world is nice and cool, obviously some are reactionnary, others conservatives. Just like others are moderates or liberals, we just don't get to hear of them. But I think that what way too many people consider as a religious problem is a societal and geopolitical issue. Which is why political parties in the West using this to gain votes and spread hatred makes me sad.
Another thing which goes in that direction is the reaction of French Muslims. There have been some reactions of condamnations of what CH did, some "they deserved it", but not much. No large-scale protests like in Arab countries.
Finally I dunno how legit is Gallup but I don't believe these figures. If we did the same polls in France I am persuaded we would get way more reasonable results. And I don't really see why, despite the few differences between the French society and the British's, French and British Muslims would be so different.

TL;DR people are turning into a religious issue what isn't one. Sorry for the wall of text.

Djzapz

Canada10681 Posts

January 19 2015 21:47 GMT

#2624

On January 20 2015 06:41 Yoav wrote:

Show nested quote +

Can we have the indignant French people in here again complaining about outsiders making generalizations about a group?

Yoav, my posts were thoroughly nuanced, I was modest and admitted ad nauseum that I could be wrong and that I don't know enough to talk about this in details, as well as the fact that I was talking about my impressions about the group. Furthermore, it's clear by my wording that I'm not generalizing and that I'm clearly aware that not Muslims are in the same boat, but at the same time I'm surprised by the response in the Muslim words, which makes me think that MANY are intense. (Many is a word that I've used a LOT, because, again, I don't like to generalize).

So I think you're dishonest. Don't be dishonest.

On January 20 2015 06:45 Nebuchad wrote:

Show nested quote +

And we can. But my point was not about the number of people killed, it has to do with the way the story was twisted. If it was only 17 deaths for any other reason I wouldn't expect them to react, if it was just the caricatures it would perhaps makes sense for them to be offended (although they shouldn't), but since the story is about deaths and a caricature, it seems odd to me that they would get hung up on something as dumb as a caricature when the other part of the story is so much more important.

On January 20 2015 06:46 OtherWorld wrote:
TL;DR people are turning into a religious issue what isn't one. Sorry for the wall of text.

The motivation behind the killings were religious and the motivation behind the current protests in the Islamic world is religious. The issue is definitely religious in nature.

As for your other points, I don't disagree with anything else that you've said. I too am disgusted by the hatred and for the longest time I was the first to defend the moderate Muslims. But from my perspective and from my personal standpoint here, it seems to me (I hope I don't need to further insist that this is an preliminary impression and a feeling) that there is a lot of intensity and a lot of adversity in the Muslim world toward the West. More than I thought there would be.

And I love people, I really do. I don't know what more to say.

Nyxisto

Germany6287 Posts

January 19 2015 21:59 GMT

#2625

On January 20 2015 06:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Well to be fair, I've read plenty of news articles noting that recent boko haram slaughter. And you must have too otherwise you wouldn't had known either I suspect. But I don't see how that is related unless there are millions of people all around the western world running riot and protesting that it is totally horrific that people are actively trying to resist boko haram.

The point is that lack of empathy for the attack on Charlie Hebdo in the Arab world isn't solely based on religious feelings (although that obviously plays a role). More often it simply about proximity and in the special case of the Arab World the political conflict with the United States(and her allies)

When people in say Iran cheer for these terrorists then I guess it's more like burning the American flag than anything else. It's simply hate towards "the West", otherwise you'd see these kind of things happening on the Arabian peninsula which propagates a much more radical version of Islam, but the protests never seem to happen there primarily.

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

January 19 2015 22:03 GMT

#2626

@Djzapz : I still think the issue is not religious. Religion is the excuse used by the people who take profit from their protests to make them demonstrate. But the drive, what makes these people go out of their homes and scream at CH, is the result of the conditions they live in, not of the religion they are affiliated to. Why aren't European Muslims protesting too if the issue is religious?
And don't worry, you've been very moderate in your posts.

Djzapz

Canada10681 Posts

January 19 2015 22:06 GMT

#2627

On January 20 2015 07:03 OtherWorld wrote:
I think the issue is not religious. Religion is the excuse used by the people who take profit from their protests to make them demonstrate. But the drive, what makes these people go out of their homes and scream at CH, is the result of the conditions they live in, not of the religion they are affiliated to. Why aren't European Muslims protesting too if the issue is religious?

So the leaders dictate to us what the issue is? The issue is religious for the people who are on the streets, do they not matter?

As for Muslims who are minorities in Europe, they can't protest in the streets. Some spoke openly against CH before the events but obviously right now it would be dangerous for them, both physically and politically. It would be frowned upon in this context.

kwizach

3658 Posts

January 19 2015 22:06 GMT

#2628

On January 20 2015 02:37 WhiteDog wrote:

Show nested quote +

And you like Fourest ? My guess is gender studies.
Again, is anything untrue in Boniface book ? Any of his quotes, any of his points of view ? Then why should I read her book ? Is it not primary sources ?
Should I read Zemmour too ?

Fourest's books are primary sources if you want to study Fourest's work. No, a chapter written on Fourest is not a primary source.
I'm doing research in political science, international relations and security, so yeah, great guess.
I explained several times what was wrong with Boniface's book, so I refer you to my previous posts. If you told me something completely wrong about Zemmour, like that he's a feminist who's defending the rights of homosexuals, yeah, I'd advise you to read him to see what he actually thinks.
I didn't say I was a huge fan of Fourest, I'm simply pointing out that taking her as an example of a double standard when compared to Dieudonné is utterly ridiculous.

On January 20 2015 02:37 WhiteDog wrote:

Show nested quote +

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.

Extremist or not, they are all muslim and it is their islamic faith that explain - in her mind - part of their difficulties to integrate and their desire not to teach the shoah to their kids - "in the name of their religious belief" (she said that right ?). What does islam has to do with the refusal of some families to teach the shoah ? It's her vision of the world in action here. It's the same when you refer to what is happening as a problem of integration.

I love how you just ignored what I replied to you, which showed how the interpretations you presented of her distorted quotes were completely off-the-mark. No, she does not see being Muslim as a problem. No, she doesn't say that being Muslim is the reason for the lack of integration of certain Muslims (in fact, she's written quite a lot to argue that the so-called "émeutes dans les banlieues" were the result of ostracizing socio-economic and urban policies and not at all of an "islamisation", so you should really consider reading her to start having a clue about her actual positions). No, she does not equate being Muslim to not wanting to have one's children learn about the Shoah. Yes, you should start paying attention to what she's actually saying and writing instead of repeating like a parrot the completely distorted versions you're spoon-fed by Boniface & friends. Take a deep breath, take off your anti-Fourest lenses and read my previous post again. Again, at no point did she make statements about "Muslims" in general, or about their faith, about Islam.

On January 20 2015 02:37 WhiteDog wrote:
I see you graciously evaded the entire part about Boniface's book.

No I didn't. Here's what I wrote to you: "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."

On January 20 2015 02:37 WhiteDog wrote:

Show nested quote +

Yes you do.

Show nested quote +

How is that relevant to Ziegler ? "Making mistakes" is a way to caracterize all that I guess.

No I don't. Can you start paying attention not only to what I'm saying but to what you're saying? You posted a reply by Ziegler in which he mentions a comment written in Charlie about his wife, and says the comment about his wife was untrue. Caroline Fourest replied to Ziegler and linked to an article she had written on the topic of the role of Ziegler's wife in the affair that was being discussed (that article had nothing to do with Ziegler but with her wife, which is what that point was about). You said, and I quote:

For exemple she says Ziegler's wife is related to the affair she call "Ramadan against Voltaire", and says she will "prove it" by referencing an article where the name of Ziegler's wife, or Ziegler itself, is not referrenced... Again, no rigor at all.

...yet there was no need to reference Ziegler himself since the point was absolutely not about him but about his wife, and Ziegler's wife's name appears everywhere in the article, you just did not know that she was called Erica Deuber-Pauli at the time (you probably did a search for "Ziegler", found nothing and called it a day). Again, you're the one talking about rigor?

On January 20 2015 02:37 WhiteDog wrote:

Show nested quote +

But that Sifaoui attacked Boniface and that this attack explain the "vendetta" and the book - eventually tainting the book because he was made with evil intent - is exactly your point.
Note that there are barely no quotes about Fourest specifically in Boniface's book, but references to Fourest's work (that I explained before) and thus no simplification and out of context quotes.

Again, I did not say that Sifaoui attacked Boniface - it's Boniface who attacked Sifaoui first, Sifaoui who commented on and denounced what Boniface had said, Boniface who attacked him in court and lost and who's now settling scores through his book. I did not pass it as "evil intent", I described it for what it was, namely one person trying his best to paint in the worse light possible some of the people he does not like, notably for personal reasons/because of a personal history between them. There's no objectivity both in his appraisal of their character and in his treatment of their work, and there are absolutely simplifications and out-of-context quotes everywhere. If you somehow managed to not see this, I guess it must be because you have no point of comparison since you never actually read Fourest and have no clue of what her actual positions and ideas are.

I love how you've now completely dropped what the actual point was, namely my response to your assertion that a Fourest-Dieudonné comparison was a good example of a double standard in the media. Here:

On January 19 2015 23:48 kwizach wrote:
[L]et me repeat: "your entire example of a double standard based on the differing treatments of Dieudonné and Fourest completely crumbles if you look, as I did, at the motives for their respective condemnations. You accuse me of a lack of contextualization, but it's you who tries to equate Fourest's condemnations for defamation (which were often, as I explained, based on the revealing of private details of the lives of the people she was talking about) and Dieudonné's condemnations for incitement to racial/religious hatred. Do you somehow fail to see the difference between the two? How exactly is Fourest getting condemned for publishing private details of the life of the Le Pen family supposed to be comparable to Dieudonné getting condemned repeatedly for blatant antisemitic statements? How is that example supposed to illustrate a double standard?". And like I said, even prior to the condemnations, his statements could already clearly be recognized for what they are, namely antisemitic.

Yoav

United States1874 Posts

January 19 2015 22:16 GMT

#2629

On January 20 2015 06:47 Djzapz wrote:

Show nested quote +

Woah there, back off the ad hominem.

I'm referencing when I made a nuanced post about racism in France a page or two ago and had a bunch of indignant people jumping down by throat to be upset that I had personally characterized them (I hadn't). So to be clear: I'm not mocking you... I'm mocking the disconnect between how people react to things being said about their culture versus other people's cultures.

Djzapz

Canada10681 Posts

January 19 2015 22:19 GMT

#2630

On January 20 2015 07:16 Yoav wrote:

Show nested quote +

I didn't mean it as an ad hominem, I'm sorry... I thought you mischaracterized my post but I was ironically mischaracterizing yours. English is not my first language so sometimes I don't understand what I'm reading

(Also I wasn't there a few pages back so I didn't get the reference)

Nebuchad

Switzerland11784 Posts

January 19 2015 22:20 GMT

#2631

On January 20 2015 06:47 Djzapz wrote:
And we can. But my point was not about the number of people killed, it has to do with the way the story was twisted. If it was only 17 deaths for any other reason I wouldn't expect them to react, if it was just the caricatures it would perhaps makes sense for them to be offended (although they shouldn't), but since the story is about deaths and a caricature, it seems odd to me that they would get hung up on something as dumb as a caricature when the other part of the story is so much more important.

It doesn't really seem that odd to me. People will cling easier to symbols than to the deaths of people they've never met. That's a large part of why you get that many people out for freedom of speech and this few people out for Boko Haram.

Djzapz

Canada10681 Posts

January 19 2015 22:21 GMT

#2632

On January 20 2015 07:20 Nebuchad wrote:

Show nested quote +

Fair point. That said, those two things (Boko Haram and Freedom of speech) are not linked in any way, and like I said before the deaths of the 17 people and the caricatures are the same story... it seems a bit weird to cling to the caricatures when the story here is about the deaths. I don't know if I'm making sense to other people right now but yeah.

To give a silly example, if Boko Haram kidnapped 60 people and said Jesus is a false idol and insulted western values, the contrast between the importance of those things would make it so to my senses protesting against caricatures of jesus would be petty bullshit. I mean people got kidnapped!

That's not to say that you don't get to be offended by caricatures of Jesus, it just means that in that context, it seems a little odd and perhaps insensitive. That being said I don't think my argument hangs on that point, it's just a thing I said

Nebuchad

Switzerland11784 Posts

January 19 2015 22:30 GMT

#2633

On January 20 2015 07:21 Djzapz wrote:

Show nested quote +

Fair point.

On the larger point that you make, I'm not disagreeing with you in the strictest sense. I mean, yeah, Islam is the religion that has the more extremism today, there's no contest on that. The problem goes both ways, on one side people want to conclude things about the religion and/or the culture based on that, ignoring the contextual aspect of that evidence, and on the other side people will rely too much on that same context and negate any kind of religious influence when there is obviously a connexion.

The correct positions are nuanced. Nuance doesn't fit very well with big terrorist attacks.

WhiteDog

France8650 Posts

January 19 2015 22:40 GMT

#2634

I didn't give any interpretation - can you quote me one interpretation I gave ?
You're talking alone : I gave you plenty of factual statements, nothing more, and you still bore me with Fourest. Like this idea that she didn't say "the muslim famillies are asking ....". Yes she did, the 14 february of 2014 in an emission on LCP and you give me this long and boring interpretation that is irrelevant in regard to what she said (it's perfectly understandable by itself).
+ Show Spoiler +

When Tariq Ramadan point out her way of quoting him, you don't budge and just continue on further with your interpretations and argumentation that I don't really care about.
Let's agree to disagree, I see you love her and it's your choice.

I love how you've now completely dropped what the actual point was, namely my response to your assertion that a Fourest-Dieudonné comparison was a good example of a double standard in the media. Here:

Show nested quote +

Yeah maybe here is the problem. It's okay if you don't understand me, but I never said Fourest and Dieudonné are equals. I said that there were plenty of people who talk nonsense in the media and who are still there despite repetitive blunder. Fourest was just quoted there because I believe she is in the same state of mind as some other (Zemmour, Finkelkraut, etc.) : everything is related to laïcité and religion, racism and minorities, which is a poor way of seeing things, and most notably a discourse that make young people believe the entire media is rotten (because ultimatly the problem they suffer is the result of their lack of education) - and despite that she is still paid by the (public) media to talk nonsense day after day !
And you focussed on her, and to be fair it might be my mystake for responding to you and thinking I could even argue with someone who believed Siné was laid off for balanced reasons.

Djzapz

Canada10681 Posts

January 19 2015 22:41 GMT

#2635

On January 20 2015 07:30 Nebuchad wrote:

Show nested quote +

Indeed.

zdarr

France375 Posts

January 19 2015 22:42 GMT

#2636

Why would there be a connection between islam and terrorism? When KKK was doing his shit, nobody started blaming the christian for it. The only connection there would be, is that islam is getting more popular in the low income population, and this population is the most likely to use violence as terrorism.

This fear of islam and this connection between islam and terrorism is built by our medias, and we all perfectly know why

Dangermousecatdog

United Kingdom7084 Posts

January 19 2015 22:49 GMT

#2637

The difference is, the KKK subscribed to an ideology of white supremacy and they proudly and loudly did so. Hence the ideology of white supremecy is blamed. When Musim extremists is doing this shit, they subscribed it to the ideology of their own brand of Islam which they too proudly and loudly did so. It's not too difficult a concept really.

Note that I am not blaming their brand of Islam, but rather the disconnect between the comparison to which zdarr is using..

Also the bizarre concept that somehow that low income people are the most likely to use violence as terrorism is...interesting to say the least. I would like to know how to use terrorism as the word is commonly used as not violent.

Nebuchad

Switzerland11784 Posts

January 19 2015 22:50 GMT

#2638

On January 20 2015 07:42 zdarr wrote:
Why would there be a connection between islam and terrorism? When KKK was doing his shit, nobody started blaming the christian for it. The only connection there would be, is that islam is getting more popular in the low income population, and this population is the most likely to use violence as terrorism.

This fear of islam and this connection between islam and terrorism is built by our medias, and we all perfectly know why

You're not doing a good job of summarizing what we said. This isn't about saying Muslims are to blame for the terrorism.

zdarr

France375 Posts

January 19 2015 23:23 GMT

#2639

Well I thought i just read someone saying there was connexion between islam and terrorism, so I wanted to stand up on that. Sorry for misunderstanding the "and on the other side people will rely too much on that same context and negate any kind of religious influence when there is obviously a connexion."

On the topic of "unviolent terrorism" i was thinking of eco-terrorism or Basque terrorist, who didn't kill to my knowledge, they just blew up buildings and installation.

kwizach

3658 Posts

January 20 2015 00:27 GMT

#2640

On January 20 2015 07:40 WhiteDog wrote:

Show nested quote +

I didn't give any interpretation - can you quote me one interpretation I gave ?

You're talking alone : I gave you plenty of factual statements, nothing more, and you still bore me with Fourest. Like this idea that she didn't say "the muslim famillies are asking ....". Yes she did, the 14 february of 2014 in an emission on LCP and you give me this long and boring interpretation that is irrelevant in regard to what she said (it's perfectly understandable by itself).
+ Show Spoiler +

http://youtu.be/QtC0Q-JFSGQ?t=2m6s

Sure. About the first quote, you said:

Sometime her way of "working" go a little further and target an entire group [emphasis mine].

About the second quote, you said:

when she argue that there is a problem with the integration of muslim immigrants

About both quotes, you also said:

it is their islamic faith that explain - in her mind - part of their difficulties to integrate and their desire not to teach the shoah to their kids - "in the name of their religious belief" (she said that right ?). What does islam has to do with the refusal of some families to teach the shoah ? It's her vision of the world in action here. It's the same when you refer to what is happening as a problem of integration.

All of those quotes show you completely misinterpreting what she actually said, and in the case of the WSJ quote you're not only misinterpreting but getting what she actually said outright wrong.

What she says in the video you posted and from which you took the first quote is, as I already explained to you in the paragraph that you ignored (and in which I addressed the clips you linked to in your youtube video), 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 and only them. Let me repeat so that you can't miss it: she was not making a general statement about Muslim families in general or Catholic families in general. Do you understand this?
On the 14th of February 2014, on LCP, as you can see in your own video, she was addressing the exact same issue and making the exact same point, so 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 Muslims families in general want the Shoah out of the curriculum or that Catholic families in general want gender equality out of the curriculum - she's mentioning those Muslim and Catholic families who do take these positions to argue that the demands of those specific families must not be met. If you still don't get it and need an analogy to understand her point, if I'm talking about the United States and say that evolution should be taught in school even if there are Christian families who want intelligent design taught instead, I will not be saying that Christian families in general want intelligent design to be taught instead of evolution, I will be saying that the specific Christian families which want intelligent design to be taught should not be listened to. How much clearer can I make this? Do you want a drawing, perhaps? I hope it helps.

In the WSJ article (second quote), and as I already told you, she did not say that Muslims had a problem of integration in Europe. 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 of some people 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.

On January 20 2015 07:40 WhiteDog wrote:
When Tariq Ramadan point out her way of quoting him, you don't budge and just continue on further with your interpretations and argumentation that I don't really care about.

Tariq Ramadan either lies about misquotes or focuses on small details which make you lose sight of the broader point she was making and which was accurate. Again, since you have not read the book, you have no clue of what you're talking about since you're taking for granted his claims without fact-checking what Fourest actually wrote.

On January 20 2015 07:40 WhiteDog wrote:
Let's agree to disagree, I see you love her and it's your choice.

A reminder of what I said: "I didn't say I was a huge fan of Fourest, I'm simply pointing out that taking her as an example of a double standard when compared to Dieudonné is utterly ridiculous". Thanks for making my point for me :-)

On January 20 2015 07:40 WhiteDog wrote:

Show nested quote +

I understood you fine and I never wrote that you said they were "equals": you mentioned her as an example of someone who is still invited in the media even though Dieudonné isn't anymore. You used this example and comparison to illustrate your claim of a "double standard". See these posts. So, to repeat, "your entire example of a double standard based on the differing treatments of Dieudonné and Fourest completely crumbles if you look, as I did, at the motives for their respective condemnations. You accuse me of a lack of contextualization, but it's you who tries to equate Fourest's condemnations for defamation (which were often, as I explained, based on the revealing of private details of the lives of the people she was talking about) and Dieudonné's condemnations for incitement to racial/religious hatred. Do you somehow fail to see the difference between the two? How exactly is Fourest getting condemned for publishing private details of the life of the Le Pen family supposed to be comparable to Dieudonné getting condemned repeatedly for blatant antisemitic statements? How is that example supposed to illustrate a double standard?. And like I said, even prior to the condemnations, his statements could already clearly be recognized for what they are, namely antisemitic." Do you seriously not see why the media would treat the two differently?

On January 20 2015 07:40 WhiteDog wrote:
And you focussed on her, and to be fair it might be my mystake for responding to you and thinking I could even argue with someone who believed Siné was laid off for balanced reasons.

I didn't say that I agreed or disagreed with the reasons for which Siné was laid off - I explained why the reasoning behind his firing did not constitute an example of a double standard.

Prev 1 130 131 132 133 134 135 Next

Please or register to reply.

Shots fired at Charlie Hebdo offices - France - Page 132

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming