UnHerdSamuel Paty, slaughtered for a lesson in tolerance, has become a martyr for the Republic.
 
John Lichfield

Samuel Paty’s lesson for 13 and-14 year-old pupils on tolerance and freedom of speech is a lesson for the whole of France. It’s a lesson for all of us.

The facts are appalling. They are grindingly familiar and disturbingly novel – a collision between the murderous certainties of fundamentalist Islam; a well-meaning school lecture; and the mendacious, conflagratory power of the internet. On October 6, Mr Paty, 47, a much-liked history and geography teacher in a dull Paris suburb, produced for his middle school civics class a pair of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed which provoked the attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine five years ago.

How can publishing such cartoons be justified, he asked the teenagers, if they offend people of the Islamic faith? Where does the freedom of expression end and respect for others’ feelings begin?

These questions are not easy, Mr Paty explained. That is why fundamental principles exist in democratic states such as France to help people of different faiths and opinions to get along without murdering one another (as they have in not-so-distant parts of French history). The complexities are the lesson. But this lesson cost Mr Paty his life. Ten days later he was dead – decapitated by a 19-year-old Chechen refugee to France as he walked home from school.

Continue reading @ UnHerd. 

Is France’s Secularism Worth Dying For?

UnHerdSamuel Paty, slaughtered for a lesson in tolerance, has become a martyr for the Republic.
 
John Lichfield

Samuel Paty’s lesson for 13 and-14 year-old pupils on tolerance and freedom of speech is a lesson for the whole of France. It’s a lesson for all of us.

The facts are appalling. They are grindingly familiar and disturbingly novel – a collision between the murderous certainties of fundamentalist Islam; a well-meaning school lecture; and the mendacious, conflagratory power of the internet. On October 6, Mr Paty, 47, a much-liked history and geography teacher in a dull Paris suburb, produced for his middle school civics class a pair of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed which provoked the attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine five years ago.

How can publishing such cartoons be justified, he asked the teenagers, if they offend people of the Islamic faith? Where does the freedom of expression end and respect for others’ feelings begin?

These questions are not easy, Mr Paty explained. That is why fundamental principles exist in democratic states such as France to help people of different faiths and opinions to get along without murdering one another (as they have in not-so-distant parts of French history). The complexities are the lesson. But this lesson cost Mr Paty his life. Ten days later he was dead – decapitated by a 19-year-old Chechen refugee to France as he walked home from school.

Continue reading @ UnHerd. 

14 comments:

  1. To answer the headline I'd say it is. One of the tweets said freedom of speech isn't worth civil war, well, I believe it is. Without it, it is authoritarianism plain and simple.
    I've no idea how to fix such problems. Combating radicalisation is impossible without authoritarianism which obviously defeats the purpose. Western civilisation's got to try and to take the moral high ground on this one. By that I don't mean the governments who help nurture radicalisation, I mean the ordinary citizen. We either believe in free speech or we don't.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The author of the article does not compare and contrast his question with the unmentioned alternative: Would life be worth living under religious dogma and intolerance? From that perspective people can then make up their own mind which they would prefer. The question posed in isolation as it is make the motive behind the question seem a little loaded -'but if only infidels would kow tow to Muslims and their thin skin nobody would get hurt.'

    But religious dogma is all too encompassing of religions generally; thus loading the choice. Other religions have their dogmas and intolerances but when offended they do not go out and cut peoples heads of -so it could be said that christians and jews, for example, would rather put up with perceived insults or offences to their religious sensitivities than simply resort to mindless murder. They accept reality, that in modern society you are going to bump into other people on crowded buses who do not give a damn about their religion, so to speak.

    So in reality, the issue can be narrowed down to Islam and Muslims willingness to co-existing with others who do not give a damn for their religion. Europe is made up of many different cultures and religions but essentially we have all agreed values or standards that make us cohesive (even with biases and conflicts) as a large community. If Muslims cannot police or regulate their own congragation then States will have to step up to protect themselves and their citizens -even if that means that Muslims considered radicalised or extreme might be deported in the interest of public safety -unquestionably mistakes will be made but it is better that, than teachers being butchered for giving lessons on secularism, which is an even greater injustice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My guess is somewhere within the next 35/40yrs France will be a Muslim country or at least have a very big Islamic presence in Gov..

    The Paris post card we all once loved is long gone....

    ReplyDelete
  4. Frankie

    That comment is of the "Burmingham - spot thee white/English person" dog whnistle variety.

    It is an invocation of The Great Replacement hteory which is the calling cry of gthe contemporary populist far right.

    There is nothing inherently wfrong with a Miuslim preseecne in government so long as the would be Caninet membders uphold France's secular values. Islam is not synomymous with ISIS, Al-Quead or other fundamentalist versins of it.

    The has been migrationm of peoples sicne the dawn of cvilisationn; that France has a substantial Muslim population (n otnhing to be feared in itself) is a legacy of France's imperial history.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Barry, when you learn to proof read and correct your typo's, I might then start to take you serious...

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Christy Walsh

    "If Muslims cannot police or regulate their own congragation then States will have to step up to protect themselves and their citizens -even if that means that Muslims considered radicalised or extreme might be deported in the interest of public safety -unquestionably mistakes will be made but it is better that, than teachers being butchered for giving lessons on secularism, which is an even greater injustice."

    One of the many flaws in your arguments is that, as the article pointed out, around 10% of France's population are Muslims. Many of the acts of terror carried out in the name of Islam in recent years have been committed by French citizens.

    So where are you going to deport "them" to?

    It's worth thinking about what Norway's Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said in response to the right-wing terrorist attack in Norway:

    “The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation,” he said.



    ReplyDelete
  7. To repeat Frnakiw:

    Your comment is of the "Birmingham - spot the white person" variety.

    It is an invocation of The Great Replacemewnt theory - the calling cry of the contemporary Algt-Right.

    There is nothing wrong with a Muslim presence in govt so long as the relevant Cabinet memeber upholds France's secular values. Islam is not synonymousw with ISIS, A;-Queda or other extremist versions of it.

    There have been migrations of people since the dawn of civilisation. That France has a substantial Muslim population (nothing to be feared in itself) is a legacy of France's imperial history.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "There have been migrations of people since the dawn of civilisation. That France has a substantial Muslim population (nothing to be feared in itself) is a legacy of France's imperial history."

    Nothing to be feared? Trying telling that to LGBTIQ, Women, and political dissenters in Muslim majority countries. This isn't a dog whistle. Fact is, once Muslims become a majority minority rights, and equal rights for women are hit first. Theocracy is never far away either. Slapping it up the French for past colonialism is sheer folly, they are a nuclear power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve R
      It is important to desentangle the undoubted patriarchal repressiveness of most Muslim majority countries from Mislim immmigration and residency in France.

      France's Moslem and black and bfrown population are largdely descended from migrants fronm former French colonies in the Maghreb and West Africa just as much of the UK's BAME population are descendfed from migrant subjects of the British Empire.

      While not wishuing to deny agency to any mogrant or non-European individuals and communities; discussion of race/integration/multiculturalism cannot fail to take into account the perniucious legacy of European coloinialism.

      there is no reaiistic demographic possibility of a Muslim majority France. France's democratic institutions are sufficoiently robust to withstand any Islamisation creep, imagined or otherrwise. I am more concerned about the threat to French and other European democracies from the nationaalist, Trumpian right.

      France's conception of secualarism, that of laicite, was promulgated in 1905 in order to to create a fireswall against the power of the Catholic Church. With the diversaity of French society 115 years later; laicite needs to be adapted to adreess the issues that diversity raises. Banning the hijab in schools or the bulha on the beach is a perversion of French republicna principles in that by enforcing such dress codes, it violates a basic liberal tenet that the state has no business interfdering with thhe liberty of the citizen in thesE matters.

      Not collecting data on race, ethnicity, religion etc on the basis of one and indivisuble French republicanism, also does not help community integration in France.

      Delete
    2. "there is no reaiistic demographic possibility of a Muslim majority France."

      Except it's predicted to happen in 40 years time.

      "France's democratic institutions are sufficoiently robust to withstand any Islamisation creep"

      Don't count on it. Almost half of Frances Muslim population want Sharia law implemented.

      https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/1568920086-poll-46-of-french-muslims-believe-sharia-law-should-be-applied-in-country

      "I am more concerned about the threat to French and other European democracies from the nationaalist, Trumpian right."

      Islam has no interest in democracy other than a vehicle for Sharia to subsume it. The trouble with democracy is that every silly bastard gets a vote.

      "Banning the hijab in schools or the bulha on the beach is a perversion of French republicna principles in that by enforcing such dress codes, it violates a basic liberal tenet that the state has no business interfdering with thhe liberty of the citizen in thesE matters."

      And that's a massive failing of the French, whatabout the rigt of fellow citizens to not see overt displays of anothers supposed piety?

      "Not collecting data on race, ethnicity, religion etc on the basis of one and indivisuble French republicanism, also does not help community integration in France."

      I'm sorry, did you not say above the French institutions were too robust to allow Islamisation creep? How the hell can they guard against something if they wilfully turn a blind eye to it?

      And I have French family, I've heard first hand their thoughts.





      Delete
  9. "Barry Gilheany

    To repeat Frnakiw:"

    There is no 'W' in Frankie...Proof read, wasn't the only typo you made but it is an improvement.

    Don't lecture me on France. I lived there, my kids live there, I have very good friends living there and I know the brothers. I smoked weed with them and got blind drunk on more than one occasion with them...



    ReplyDelete
  10. Frankie

    Islam does not automatically equate to Islamism

    You made a racist statement.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If that is what you believe Barry, feel free to report me to the 'Thought Police'......

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mr J

    France would be deporting them and not me. When I was writing I was mindful that France was intending to deport 231 radical Muslims -and although many, if not most, will be French citizens they also have citizenship elsewhere, such as in Algeria -which is the only lawful way they can be deported.

    I think Norway's Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg has his head up his ass. Radical Muslims do not believe in or want Democracy or human rights -they only use western standards in so far as it can advance their cause -with the exception of right to life or prohibition on torture -individuals can waive any or all other human rights they have under the ECHR because the Quran is their authority -if they are radicalisied Muslims then by default they have indicated that they want to waive their human rights under the convention --so deporting them would not breach any laws -providing they are not being made stateless. In fact if they are radical Muslims then no one is hurt -they do not share western values and are likely deported to Muslim majority country with little or no democracy and probably a consistent record of breaching human rights -its a win win for everyone.

    ReplyDelete