Serious Charlie Hebdo attack and European Far Right

[DiscoDucky]

So, as many of us all heard in the news, three gunmen killed eight staff members of the French satirist newspaper Charlie Hebdo and two police officers.

Just to give context, Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical magazine that stands far left and is heavily anti-religious. Internationally decried by both Muslims and non-Muslims, the attacks on the French newspaper only strengthens the resolve of the far-right movement all across Europe.

In recent years, many Europeans have seen not only an increase of far-right candidates in elections, but also an increase in far-right politicians in the European Union. With many EU countries falling into recession in the past couple of years, far right parties have gaining steam in the EU Parliament. Furthermore, more and more Europeans have begun to support parties such as Greece's Golden Dawn Party and Hungary's Jobbik Party, many of which support anti-immigration policies and pure nationalism. Even Germany, one of the strongest countries in the European Union, have begun seeing increases of far-right movement, most notably the big "anti-Islamisation" rally in Dresden with a turnout of 18,000 people. Many

Again, touching upon topics like these can potentially to ad hominem attacks. I completely acknowledge the fact that in such a large community such as Smogon, there will be people on different ends of the political spectrum and hold different opinions on the situation. Just remember, there are always two sides to an issue and learning about the points made by each side.

So general discussion questions:

1. What kind of effect will this attack have on the Muslim community and immigrant communities?
2. What kind of effect will this attack have on European society?
3. How do you see this event affect European politics in the years to come?
4. What do you think should be the course of action constituent governments should take in response to this attack as well as potential collateral damage?

Discuss.

 

[Myzozoa]

honestly

When poor and/or black people die, no one gives a fuck. Only more harm and further violence will come from making a big deal about this. Maybe if you want people to not be terrorists you should do something about poverty in the developing world and stop bombing other countries, and stop voting for political groups (i.e the two largest terror organizations in the world, the republican and democratic parties) with a track record of being dangerously incompetent. Ultimately making a big deal about what is a really common occurrence (violence brought about by fundamentalism) in most of the world is really tiring to me. If the state uses this as an opportunity to promote its surveillance state that will only be a victory to forms of far-right extremism whose goal is make every individual the same by purging deviancy in the name of security.

Making a scene about this in america can only be a false-flag distracting from the militarization of the democratic surveillance state and the racism which is its foundation. Also climate change, the world is gonna end in 50 years if we don't act now.

Why should we care a lot about some none too clever french journalists again? Just because of lot of journalists are finding out that, just as in the rest of the fucking world, making statements can provoke a violent reaction from fundamentalists? Lots of non-white journalists are killed in mexico and russia and various places and why would Europe be any different? What about doctors that provide abortions being bombed by christians? What about women who are forced by the american government to have children at the threat of jail?

that you imagine charlie hebdo as the far left is cute, but i think it lacks political imagination a bit, there is such a range outside of even what is represented in 'liberal' journalism. The world is really scary, just because money basically bought everything and our journalists are mostly propagandists for the establishment at the end of the day doesn't mean the world is progressing towards better times. Sorry, it's more profitable to put out a simple story where there are just two-sides and no historical context given to make sense of the event represented. Maybe journalists should stop being pawns for fundamentalists by making it seem like every issue has just two sides, which are equal in that they are both given to be rational and worthy of reporting on.

 

[billymills]

Why should we care a lot about some none too clever french journalists again? Just because of lot of journalists are finding out that, just as in the rest of the fucking world, making statements can provoke a violent reaction from fundamentalists?

Yea why were those cartoonists drawing in the first place? Couldn't they go get real jobs?

Lots of non-white journalists are killed in mexico and russia and various places and why would Europe be any different? What about doctors that provide abortions being bombed by christians? What about women who are forced by the american government to have children at the threat of jail?

I'm not sure we should be basing our freedom of speech standards on Mexico and Russia, but I agree about the double standard. If christians are allowed to bomb abortion clinics and doctors, we should at least permit one muslim shooting per year.

 

[Myzozoa]

Well if you can tell me a story about how making a big deal about this event is going to lead to anything good for freedom of speech, by all means? Otherwise you're really not addressing my argument at all, are you?

If it's about freedom of speech then: this violent act is illegal. It is against the law. Thats what laws about freedom of speech are (and thus all they're worth): they allow an individual legal entity (citizen, corporation, etc, etc) to sue another entity, or the government to criminally prosecute an entity. What are you suggesting be done in the name of protecting freedom of speech beyond this? If the answer is to have more surveillance of citizens and peal back legal protections of privacy, I view this as a victory for terrorism and fundamentalism. Same thing if the answer is to invigorate the wars which promise never to end. Journalists must realize they are not unbiased reporters of events, and further, which events they cover, those selected moments that never happened quite in that way, affects the way resources are ultimately distributed and thus people's life chances. When journalism aims for profit rather than emancipation is it even worth the risks? I see a journalist die and I find it immensely tragic that perhaps the story really wasn't one worth dying for? Everything is political so maybe if you don't wanna be killed or even forced by the fact of existing to contribute to others' deaths you should get a more in-touch political perspective. That way your death can be worth while, because as I already said, this is a murderous terrible world filled with people who only comprehend how the world is and never what it could potentially be, and you will die sooner or later and that will be entirely meaningless if you make your choices as though they don't have political consequences. The fundamentalists will come for you, their simplicity is profitable, their exploitative traditions create wealth, and you will encounter them, and they will find you, and you will not escape by voting, they are in your state houses and they sometimes even write the news, so better learn how to resist their trappings sooner rather than later. The tragedy is that things like this can happen and it is a big worry that the causal chain of reporting on it will ultimately be incredibly harmful and violent. Every event happens twice, at least twice, and history does not repeat itself but it rhymes (it begins to sound the same. and yet somehow we only manage to 'get it up' for certain kinds of events, and which events are sexy/profitable follows this weirdly racist logic imo).

I did not blame the victims in particular, I am anticipating what I suspect will be an empty reaction to this event that ultimately compounds on the initial violence.

 

[billymills]

What do you think is the basis for rights?

To think rights are granted from a piece of paper or the benevolence of government is naive. Especially if that government is comprised of the two largest terror organizations in the world.

I see rights as principles people are willing to group together to support. If people demonstrate support for freedom of speech, then cartoonists, authors, journalists may feel a little more willing to continue to express themselves (their stories, their opinions) freely. I do not think free speech is going to disappear, nor do I think there will be any drastic action taken by any government. I'm more afraid of passive indifference to the actions, blaming the victims of the act for having brought it on themselves.

Do I particularly care about some none too clever french journalists? Not really, I had never read their works, nor would I have, had they not been attacked. Do I care about further waning of free speech rights in favour of censorship? Ban me please.

I think public support for the cartoons and freedom of speech can do good, especially right now.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015...n-2012-for-publishing-naked-muhammad-cartoon/

 

[Myzozoa]

yah im saying if you actually care about free speech beyond the law you will have some sort of anti-profit/exploitation/racism component to how you understand constructing an environment of 'free speech'. so i think public demonstration against racist governments and income inequality/global capitalism is an appropriate response which will likely not occur.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Racism towards any race will just continue to happen, not only towards Muslims. Because different is different. People will always find that something is different, no matter how much the media says "all humans are the same".
Bombing or any attack done by the minority will always cause an easy excuse for the majority to hate the former. And thus consolidate the hate.

However, I do hope that Europe could stay between left and centralist. As Myzozoa said, for climate change, if we don't act now, it will be disastrous.
Moreover, I think different groups being peaceful towards each other is way more beneficial than having one dominant group whilst the others are oppressed.

 

[Lavos]

okay i think for there to be a meaningful discussion here a distinction has to be drawn between legal free speech and natural free speech

legal free speech is what myzozoa cited above, "they allow an individual legal entity (citizen, corporation, etc, etc) to sue another entity, or the government to criminally prosecute an entity" which means it is a government action granted by the will of the people to restrict the liberty of the people (otherwise known as their natural rights/natural free speech being part of this) for their own protection, for example now i do NOT have the freedom to go behead someone in the street, but my security and the security of those around me is increased in a tradeoff for this sacrifice of my liberty. hope that makes sense because whenever there's a conversation where the words "free speech" are being thrown around with a legal subcontext it can get confusing.

as for the issue itself, my two cents has already been expressed above but i'll echo some sentiments. i question why this killing in particular is a big ticket issue to the public, the question itself being somewhat rhetorical since we already know why. france, a first world country and part of the western powers, most notably close ally of the united states, is the target in question. white journalists being killed by muslim fundamentalists where a prejudice already exists towards such peoples in western media will create large headlines. and yet every day such brutal killings upon journalists, and far worse killings besides, are enacted in third world nations and even larger countries such as the ones myzozoa pointed out, like in mexico where hundreds of journalists have been executed for opposing the cartels, or in russia where journalists who spoke out against the autocracy of putin would mysteriously go missing or simply be shot "at random". yet this news is not seen as valuable because the countries are not relevant to western media consumer interests, it is not sensational enough so to speak. to me, the publicity this particular incident receives in comparison to others of similar abhorrence speaks to the corruption of the news distribution system in the west above all else.

 

[Myzozoa]

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...im-not-sure-im-as-brave-as-i-think-i-am#img-1

 

[Shinryu]

So, actions have consequences. Nothing new here. Poking fun at another religion while hiding under free speech isn't smart, but being shot up over it is a bit of an extreme response.

 

[JES]

Hopefully, this won't see further polarization between Muslims and non-Muslins in retaliation. The gunmen who perpetrated this heinous and cowardly act should be brought to justice, and given the fact that they are carrying assault weapons, means that they will probably be shot on the spot if the opportunity presents itself, which is probably more than they deserve, given the fact that they "executed" an unarmed policeman, which in another vernacular means that they murdered an officer of the law in cold blood, who wasn't even armed.

If they want to discuss this in a civilized manner, then they will retort their objections in a civilized manner, and if they want to slaughter unarmed journalists like animals, then the French law enforcement has the right to slaughter them like animals.

This unfortunately might also see an end to the idea of police officers not carrying firearms on them in the EU. A shame, because this is a very laudable ideal, but also a shame because the world is just too violent for this ideal to work in practice, at least so long as it is considered morally right to kill unarmed policemen in the minds of some, not that I really think these types of people to even understand the concept of morality.

Hopefully, this won't have any effect on civil rights in France, or any other countries an a last gasp attempt to prevent similar attacks.

 

[BaffleBlend]

I'm not sure we should be basing our freedom of speech standards on Mexico and Russia, but I agree about the double standard. If christians are allowed to bomb abortion clinics and doctors, we should at least permit one muslim shooting per year.

The last abortion clinic attack was the Wisconsin Planned Parenthood attack in April 2012, which was decried even by major pro-life organizations. Don't bring your personal bigotry into this.

 

[Jorgen]

"Probably racist" is a good thing to realize about those Charlie Hebdo Mohammed cartoons. It's a very minor transgression in the scheme of things, let alone worth an absurd punishment like gunmen in your office, and for that we should definitely care that "none-too-clever" cartoonists are being gunned down for no good reason. However, there's reason even for secular people to be uncomfortable with using this event to elevate this sort of work to the pedestal of martyrdom.

 

[BaffleBlend]

"Probably racist" is a good thing to realize about those Charlie Hebdo Mohammed cartoons. It's a very minor transgression in the scheme of things, let alone worth an absurd punishment like gunmen in your office, and for that we should definitely care that "none-too-clever" cartoonists are being gunned down for no good reason. However, there's reason even for secular people to be uncomfortable with using this event to elevate this sort of work to the pedestal of martyrdom.

Yeah, while we shouldn't defend the cartoons themselves because they were just plain insensitive, nobody deserves to die for just being insensitive. There's a reason even the muslim community is lashing out against this attack despite the cartoons being against their own beliefs - that should give people some idea just how extremist and not mainstream (like I keep hearing) these gunmen were.

 

[JES]

Whether it is religion or government, they all seem to have their bad apples. Albeit these bad apples being deadly case of food poisoning bad.

I respect those who have decried, or even lashed out against these terrorists, even though they claim to be of the same religion. The fact that they decry these atrocious acts as going against their beliefs only makes me respect their religion all the more.

Then again, I consider Christian, Muslim, and Judaism to be very similar, albeit with different flavors, but they all seem to worship who could easily be the same god, and their morals seem to be very similar as well. I'm Jewish myself, so I don't believe that Muslims deserve to be persecuted in some sort of vain attempt at retribution. The fact that someone claiming to share their faith has committed acts of genocide means that they deserve support during this difficult time, and to help spread the message that they do not represent the true Muslim belief. They are rebels. No rebels wouldn't kill innocent people. They are terrorists. I believe that the difference between a rebel and a terrorist is that the latter has no qualms about innocent people who get hurt or killed in order to achieve their goals.

And attacking members of the press is indeed a heinous crime. If they didn't like the cartoon, then they should have made a cartoon of the dominant religious figure among the journalists in response (or had an artist do it for them). That would be considered acceptable in today's civilization. At the very least, ridiculing or making fun of others religions would be the lesser of evils, and maybe both sides might even have fun, and get laughs out of it.
Part of being members of the same race, even if we are of different religions and languages means that we might laugh at each other's beliefs, and it is far more agreeable and civilized, if at the end of the day, we at least respect the religion and beliefs that we have each chosen, and don't resort to violence because we disagree. If everyone would do that, if everyone respected everyone else's cultural and religious customs and beliefs (well, at least so long as those beliefs don't entail causing pain and suffering to other living things, as a primary example), the world would be a more harmonious place. Muslims might find the cartoon that Charlie Hebdo did offensive, and they have every right to voice their disapproval, and that is what many have done at this point. Not buying anything from that publishing establishment would also be fair. Even protests wouldn't be out of order, to make it loud and clear to Charlie Hebdo that their cartoon was religiously offensive, so that they knew that they sort of tipped their toes into foul water, and should probably avoid that in the future, and find other stuff to joke about. What the gunmen did, "executing" journalists for a perceived transgression agains their political beliefs, is unacceptable in a civilized sense. It has happened way too much in the past, way back in the distant pass when religions competed with one another. I think that we should be civilized and advanced enough to the point that we should be able to solve these disagreements in a civilized manner. Perhaps the fact that these gunmen did the exact opposite points to the fact that they aren't exactly civilized.

I'll end my rant/thesis/rhetoric/whatever you want to call it by saying this: hopefully, these attacks won't change the way that the EU conducts it's politics at it's core. In some ways, they are even more civilized than the United States: some members no longer having the death penalty, or not using large prisons as a source of profit, it kinda makes me proud to have the EU as an ally of my country. It is my hope that they continue to hold onto the ideals that these policies represent, and serve as an example to the rest of the world. I don't know exactly what a far right government policy would entail, but my gut tells me it wouldn't be good.

 

[destinyunknown]

In recent years, many Europeans have seen not only an increase of far-right candidates in elections, but also an increase in far-right politicians in the European Union. With many EU countries falling into recession in the past couple of years, far right parties have gaining steam in the EU Parliament. Furthermore, more and more Europeans have begun to support parties such as Greece's Golden Dawn Party and Hungary's Jobbik Party, many of which support anti-immigration policies and pure nationalism. Even Germany, one of the strongest countries in the European Union, have begun seeing increases of far-right movement, most notably the big "anti-Islamisation" rally in Dresden with a turnout of 18,000 people. Many

Considering that in some countries the unemployment rate is of 25% (ie there are more than 5 million unemployed people in Spain) anti-immigration policies are no surprise. I'm not saying immigration is the reason for that, but those policies are understandable in the current situation.

Nationalism and other extremist parties' support has risen due to the crisis, and as we all know, it's in those kind of desperate situations and crisis when people start leaning toward extremisms. Anti-Islamisation and nationalism are just some examples, in Spain it's anti-catholicism, independentism and anti-monarchism (that one is stupid btw -.-) for example.

 

[Sapientia]

The last abortion clinic attack was the Wisconsin Planned Parenthood attack in April 2012, which was decried even by major pro-life organizations. Don't bring your personal bigotry into this.

I don't support catholic extremists / fundamentalists either. So I don't really know why you people even want to justify the one idiot's violence with the other idiot's.

And honestly the content of the cartoons doesn't matter at all. Evelyn Hall'S quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" brings it to the point: Most of the people supporting Charlie Hebdo now didn't even know them before, but want to defend the freedom of speech. It wouldn't make any difference if they made fun of pokemon players and one of us went to kill them.

 

[mirza]

Cartoonists are allowed to provoke terrorists by hiding under the guise of free speech while women aren't even allowed to wear their hijab in france. Freedom of expression my ass. Where's the social responsibility here? Legally the cartoonists did nothing wrong and were probably aware of the danger they were putting themselves in.

Also the killing is supposedly revenge for an Al-Qaeda leader's death in Yemen, directed from Yemen, by Al-Qaeda. Apparently one of the Hebdo killers received weapons training in Yemen as well.

Who knows what will happen in the long run but in my opinion Europe would LOVE to rid it self of Muslims.. It's cool to shit on faith and I myself am an atheist but I find it very sad how every time something like this happens muslim people are targeted like it's their fault somehow.

 

[chaos]

Some hastily written thoughts from an Arab:

- The amount of hateful rhetoric on the Internet directed at Muslims after this and the Sydney Siege has been overwhelming. Funny how the Internet racists calling for deporting Muslims after Hebdo didn't call for deporting cops after Ferguson. I'm hearing a lot of "the Muslim community should denounce this" from people who won't even spend 30 seconds to check if people are denouncing it. It doesn't matter either way to them.

- There's really nothing that can be done to stop this from occurring again (lol 9/11), except to stop people from caring so much about Mohammed cartoons, or for people to stop drawing them. On the latter, I don't believe in indiscriminate free speech (most people don't if you press them on their beliefs), so we need to draw a line at which types of speech are allowed and which aren't, but I can't imagine any sensible rule that disallows blasphemy. On the former:

- I know it's good intentioned, but the outburst of (generally white liberal) apologia for Islam that happens after these things bothers me a lot. Many who care about social justice do not understand (or at least don't talk about...) the intense social and legal penalties for people born into Islam who want to leave the religion. Whenever I hear someone defending Islam, I just have this gut instinct to shake them, yell "No, fuck! What are you talking about? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?"

- Related to previous point, I wish people would make a better distinction between Muslim and Arab, and update the language used to speak about such issues ("Islamophobia"). Nobody cares about white people who convert to Islam (or, I would argue, black people who convert to Islam--but they have their own issues). Nobody who wants to deport Arab immigrants cares if they actually follow Islam or not.

 

[Bughouse]

I'm hearing a lot of "the Muslim community should denounce this" from people who won't even spend 30 seconds to check if people are denouncing it. It doesn't matter either way to them.

This so much this.

For those wondering, here is a list of people, countries, and organizations that have condemned the attack: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/...ris-shooting-that-fox-news-cant-seem-to-find/

Not that anyone should ever even have to produce this list in the first place... it's degrading

 

[JES]

Fox News is a tool anyways.

 

[Outlaw]

I'm positively baffled at how some people can blame the cartoonists for this.

 

[kd24]

agreed outlaw

So, actions have consequences. Nothing new here. Poking fun at another religion while hiding under free speech isn't smart, but being shot up over it is a bit of an extreme response.

i mean what..? why are religious attacks given a protective blanket of "well...they did insult their religion". fuck off. you shouldn't kill people. it's as simple as that. it actually makes me angry that people are actually saying that there is a line that shouldnt be crossed with religion - people close to me shared this sentiment about that interview film. "well it shouldnt have been made in the first place, they could retaliate". the problem is crazy sociopaths getting to hind behind excuses of their country or religion or w/e and literally killing people while we sit at our computers and say "well we really shouldnt have said anything". how about we really shouldnt threaten terrorism or destroy people financially or kill people -___-

 

[Mekkah]

The victim blaming is real in this thread. Some respect please, holy crap.

 

[JES]

Kim Jong-Un deserved to be satired. He is a tyrant. He better pray that the CIA doesn't actually decide to take him out if he does some sort of stupid retaliation.
The North Korean ruling party should know by now that we Americans value our Freedom of Expression, and threatening that right really isn't a good idea, 'cause it just causes us to act all the more defiant and all.