You’ve broadened the discussion quite a bit here, and I agree with what you’ve added. There has to be more discussion about root causes, and that discussion has to be honest. While some deny it’s not Islam, when radical and fundamentalist Islam is clearly part of the problem, there are plenty of others who deny the socio-economic and geo-political causes, or at least their own or their country’s part in them.

Well, Aslan says in that clip that CH’s publications “are not a justification at all”, so it’s simply not fair to lump him with Derek Fox who said they were.

I think you’re equating discussion of the wider context that terrorism takes place in, with justification for specific acts. But explanation is not justification. As I said previously, what Aslan actually links French racism to in this piece is the fact that it makes recruitment easier for the likes of al Qeada. And al Qeada exists for reasons that go well beyond religion. bin Laden told journalists that he turned on the US for supporting Israeli oppression of Palestinians, for causing the deaths of a million people in Iraq via sanctions that included a ban on medicines, and for keeping US troops in Saudi Arabia. These reasons are much more political than religious. They are a huge part of why al Qeada recruits to kill. Explaining this context does not justify that killing in any way at all.

Without full context, we can’t address all the underlying causes of terrorism. All we can do is complain about Islam and free speech, while missing the critical geo-political steps the West needs to take as well. If we can’t talk about all of al Qeada’s motives out of fear of being labelled apologists, we’ll never reduce terrorism. The only people served by this are the terrorists and the Muslim haters that you rightly castigate above.

They fired a cartoonist, yes, but they didn’t kill him. They were wrong imo, but that doesn’t make them valid targets for murder. Nothing does.

I think France has a problem with anti-Semitism, which they have created for themselves with the law that makes it illegal to deny the Holocaust. (I’ve talked about this in my response to another comment.) Christopher Hitchens has talked/written about this too: http://youtu.be/1dWxklSFPEA . I haven’t watched this one, but from what I know his thoughts on the matter align fairly closely with mine.

As I said in my article, most of the leaders marching in the Paris Unity March were from countries that have suppressed freedom of speech in their own countries. Many have specifically attacked and killed journalists, so they’re basically a bunch of hypocrites. I hope the fact that they marched though will give them pause for thought in the future. Yes, I agree, that hope is probably wasted.

I agree with one thing – it is one of Aslan’s more reasonable pieces. I have noticed him being much more careful since the FGM thing, which is all to the good. I didn’t quote Aslan except for the words “France’s ability to tolerate multiculturalism”. The words you have put in quote marks weren’t a quote, but a selection of mine of the sorts of words various people have used to blame the victims including, but not limited to, Fox and Aslan. Most of my article hardly referred to Aslan, so I’m surprised that is what resonated for you so much.

Aslan is intelligent, good at expressing himself verbally (and in writing for that matter), and good at seeming to be reasonable. It is only further analysis of what he actually says that exposes him for what he is – an apologist for all Muslims and all of Islam, whatever they do.

I don’t recall the bit in Jerry’s article about Sharia Law, but I think if you disagree with what he’s written, you should take that up with him directly.

France is far from perfect. The law that forbids questioning whether the Holocaust happened is, I think, ill-advised. My opinion, as an historian, is that there is no doubt that the Holocaust did happen and anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong and ignoring the evidence. However, I also find stifling enquiry offensive, so in the spirit of freedom of enquiry I have to put up with such ignorance, even though that ignorance usually finds its origin in religious prejudice. I should be able to criticize those people as much as I like, but neither of us, no matter how offensive we find the views of the other, should ever feel justified in resorting to violence or murder.

Aslan can, and should (if he wants to of course), criticize what he sees as wrong with French society all he wants. He should never make any link that seems to justify violence or murder, which, in my opinion, he did.

Mis-characterisation of this sort is what often we complain others do to atheists, so it is important we don’t do the same. That Aslan has done similarly bad things in the recent past is no excuse, I hope you agree.

In this clip, he explicitly voices virtually unconditional support for free speech and that violence is never justified, agreeing that as many world leaders as possible should join in the affirmation. He also talks about the backdrop that this violence is occurring in, which is not irrelevant, as too many want to argue.

Specifically he says, as you quote, there is in France a lot of “racism, bigotry, bullying, assumption of cultural superiority, arrogance, inability to tolerate multi-culturalism, ignorance…”, – is this in doubt? But Aslan was talking about French society in general, not Charlie Hebdo. In fact, he hardly mentions them at all, and when he does, it is to say that they are part of a long legitimate tradition in France. In fact, he gives the sort of comment on CH that I’ve been reading from other journalists and French people in defence of CH when they’ve has been charged with racism. Even when offered a chance to brand their satire as hate speech, he does not, but defends their right to print what they want.

This is hardly blaming the victim. The very most you could say is that Aslan offered France’s widespread racism as part of the overall causes of violence, which he also points out is currently being perpetrated against French Muslims as well as by them. This division is easy to exacerbate and exploit. It provides groups like al Qeada great opportunities to radicalise other Muslims to their cause. To point out such things is not apologetics, but critical to understanding enough such that useful solutions might be found.

If you think this is incorrect, I would like to hear why.

Coyne also implies that Aslan’s call for greater acceptance of multiculturalism in France includes instituting sharia law, but again, Aslan says no such thing. The example he holds up for the France is the US! We might want to offer critique that the US has itself a long way to go yet regarding multiculturalism, but it’s ridiculous to imply Aslan wants to turn France into some kind of Muslim theocracy.

Frankly, this is the most reasonable and informing piece I’ve seen Aslan deliver. With respect, he deserves better than he has got here.

Yet Charlie Hebdo FIRED a cartoonist after he refused to apologise for drawing a cartoon which suggested that Jews get further in the world for being Jews.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

Surely if you believe in freedom of speech, you’re allowed to say this. Surely if Charlie Hebdo believed in freedom of speech, they would never have sacked him.

Hi Paxton. That’s a good question, and a really difficult one. It’s hard to put a definition on it because imo it always depends on context, manner of delivery, to whom you’re talking, and all sorts of other things. I think artists (including satirists and cartoonists), comedians and some others should be given some leeway. There are certainly plenty of things people say that I consider hateful, that nevertheless I feel compelled to defend their right to say them. It is a different situation here – we have no constitution; freedom of speech is protected by human rights legislation. That legislation includes a hate speech offence: (Pinched from Wikipedia)

New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute “threatening, abusive, or insulting…matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons…on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons”. Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which “racial disharmony” creates liability.

As you can see, religion is excluded from the list – NZ takes the same position as that outlined in my article as US and Europe do at the UN.

Good point. Wikipedia states there were Muslim-majority countries that didn’t support the law because they didn’t want closer scrutiny of their anti-blasphemy laws, but doesn’t state who they were. I suppose it would be easy enough to find out via the UN website though.