Charlie Hebdo and other attacks in Paris

Admin: comment moved back here.

Since the Charlie Hebdo thread has been derailed into a thread about Gender etc. I thought this thread might be the best one to continue talking about the Charlie Hebdo events.

In particular, it seems vital to show to Anglophones who are not familar with some of the things happening in France how the left, including former anarchists and current "anti-capitalists" have fallen into some nauseating attitudes.

As ocelot pointed out, citing this thread, there have been a wave of arrests under the new anti-terrorist laws (voted for by the Front de Gauche, an alliance of the French Communist Party and other state capitalist organisations, in particular the Partie de Gauche lead by Melenchon) aimed at any silly kind of "ironic" attitude that could be construed as incitement to terrorism .

Meanwhile, the ex- Federation Anarchiste "libertarian" philosopher Michel Onfray has called for a US-style "Patriot Act" in France (in French). And Yves Coleman of "Ni patrie ni frontières" ("neither country nor borders") moralisticly describes the previously linked to parody of a Charlie Hebdo cover in the following (not perfectly translated) way:

Parallel to these “anti-cops” positions in ultradical milieux, many anti-imperialists, anti-Zionists, anarchists and leftists, after a few hypocrite precautions ("we are horrified" etc.) put in the same bag the islamist murderers and the victims of "Charlie Hebdo". The ultimate dishonor was probably hit by Mr Norman Finkelstein, whose posts are illustrated by a real cover of "Charlie Hebdo" ("The Koran is crap, it does not stop bullets”) and a fake cover representing Charb, one of the cartoonists killed, declaring "Charlie is crap, it does not stop bullets. "

- here

Apart from being completely blind to the irony of the cover parody showing CH's jokey indifference towards those killed during the Arab spring, this "Ni patrie ni frontieres" guy fails to mention the arrest of the guy for producing this cover. And resists all notion that the clearly neoliberal mentality expressed in vaguely leftist terms by Charlie Hebdo is, on an international scale , every bit as horrific as Islamofascism. And that both feed off each other (rather like the symbiotic relationship between Zionism and anti-semitism). What is more, in this desire to show how "human" he is, he ignores the obvious fact that "respect for human life" was hardly shown in the original CH cover that the Norman Finkelstein parodies. Obviously the death of a cop by Islamofascists is not something to be cheered. But can one honestly pretend sadness and outrage at these deaths whilst not pretending sadness and outrage at the deaths of Hamas journalists by the ISDF? Is one meant to constantly display horror at deaths inflicted by Islamofascists but not do the same for each and every one of the 10s of thousands of kids killed each day by malnutrion and bad health conditions maintained today by the neoliberal form of capitalism almost invariably supported by Charlie Hebdo?

In all this one can see it is as important to critique the enemy within regardless of whether they call themselves "communist", "anarchist" or whatever, as the more obvious enemies.

Please note:
If there are any responses to this and I do not immediately reply to them, this is because I am going away and will have no time for the internet, which anyway is something I tend to avoid. I will reply in a couple of weeks probably.

WattTyler1381

Discussion of Charlie Hebdo continues here

No it does not. It may not continue anywhere,but certainly doesn't continue there. If people still have things to say about CH, then this is the thread.

factvalue:

any progress on that "equal pay for equal work" claim?

S. Artesian/Tyrion

Dear O dear. I started asking about this because I thought there'd be people on here who would have interesting detail and analysis to pass on. And while there has been one useful new source, now I find myself being charged with things like suggesting that we live in a matriarchy or that I've made an assertion that there is equal pay for equal work, tactics a junior high school debating society would be ashamed of. Get a grip. Although this topic is of importance to me - which is why I'm still reading and collating i.e. I HAVE NOT MADE MY MIND UP ABOUT WHAT I'VE BEEN RESEARCHING - mainly I'd rather play with my wee girls at the weekend than engage in that level of discourse.

factvalue

S. Artesian/Tyrion

Dear O dear. I started asking about this because I thought there'd be people on here who would have interesting detail and analysis to pass on. And while there has been one useful new source, now I find myself being charged with things like suggesting that we live in a matriarchy or that I've made an assertion that there is equal pay for equal work, tactics a junior high school debating society would be ashamed of. Get a grip. Although this topic is of importance to me - which is why I'm still reading and collating i.e. I HAVE NOT MADE MY MIND UP ABOUT WHAT I'VE BEEN RESEARCHING - mainly I'd rather play with my wee girls at the weekend than engage in that level of discourse.

Here's what you wrote:

Ok but it might take a while longer tonight as my wife is going out with her mates and I'm at home with the kids. My main observation so far about the numbers that are typically passed around, such as those produced by the US Bureau of Labour Statistics, has been that they tend to be based upon aggregation, not like for like, simply because this more relevant metric is so hard to come by. I'll see what I can put together for you. Do try to receive it without ideological blinkers on if you can, won't you? Oh do!

"Might take a while longer tonight" is what you wrote. I'm asking if you came up with anything that indicates that the reported variance in pay by gender is an not an accurate evaluation of the real conditions of work in capitalist society.

Your debating tactic, apparently, is to say "how could you charge me with...."? That's pretty lame. I'm not charging you with anything. You said the analyses of gender based pay gaps don't hold up to scrutiny.

So if you haven't made up your mind, if you're still "researching and collating" then how do you know that those studies don't hold up to "scrutiny"?

Short-version: quite your whimpering. You want to spend time with you "wee girls," that's fine. I take every opportunity to be with my granddaughters.

Shorter version: climb down off your high horse before someone accuses you of being a dick.

factvalue

S. Artesian/Tyrion

Dear O dear. I started asking about this because I thought there'd be people on here who would have interesting detail and analysis to pass on. And while there has been one useful new source, now I find myself being charged with things like suggesting that we live in a matriarchy or that I've made an assertion that there is equal pay for equal work, tactics a junior high school debating society would be ashamed of. Get a grip. Although this topic is of importance to me - which is why I'm still reading and collating i.e. I HAVE NOT MADE MY MIND UP ABOUT WHAT I'VE BEEN RESEARCHING - mainly I'd rather play with my wee girls at the weekend than engage in that level of discourse.

Yeah, I'm sure your objective and rational quest for knowledge is really interesting to women who experience the harmful effects of patriarchy every day. It's just so ridiculous to express this condescending "scholarly" skepticism toward women writing about their own experiences with sexism given how incredibly obvious that sexism should be to anyone. The world is almost literally ruled by men and left-wing politics have clearly always been dominated by men, so it's the opposite of outlandish that a woman would experience forms of subordination--and in this case, a form of subordination that loads of women talk about experiencing! It sure is great that women not only have to constantly deal with misogyny, but then get the fun of having to "prove" the validity of their experiences to men.

It's just so ridiculous to express this condescending "scholarly" skepticism toward women writing about their own experiences with sexism given how incredibly obvious that sexism should be to anyone.

It sure is great that women not only have to constantly deal with misogyny, but then get the fun of having to "prove" the validity of their experiences to men.

The pay gap is not an "experience", or not merely so. It is and ought to be amenable to scientific study. It seems beyond obvious to me that one person saying "this guy got paid more than me" doesn't prove that this reflects the situation for women as a whole, and saying this ought not to imply any dismissal of that individual woman's own experience.

I'm on your side on the substantive issue - I'm pretty solidly convinced there is a pay gap (and even if there were to be a situation of "equal pay for equal work", it would still raise a question of women's access to better paid jobs, unfair assumptions that women will be the ones to take career breaks to look after children, etc. etc.).

But I find your attitude towards attempts to study the pay gap in detail frankly bizarre. Why is it somehow disreputable to try and gain statistical knowledge of such a subject?

Where did Tyrion refer to the wage gap? The way I read it, s/he was more referring to being interrupted by men at meetings, which is what originally drew factvalue's ire. He was the one who brought up the wage gap, nobody else. So typical again. We start talking about something a man brought up... There's your evidence right there.

Sort of related (to OP) cultural phenomenon:

G: Michel Houellebecq’s Soumission becomes instant No 1 in Germany

Still at the top of the charts in France, Michel Houellebecq’s divisive new novel Soumission has now conquered Germany, shooting to the top of the charts in its first week in shops, with more than a quarter of a million copies now in print in German.
.
Translated as Unterwerfung (Submission) in German, Soumission tells of a near-future France which votes in the “Muslim Fraternity” party, rather than the far-right Front National, headed by Marine Le Pen. Once the change is effected, women begin to wear veils in public.
.
The novel, which drew controversy over its topic even before publication, was released in France on 7 January, the day on which 12 people were killed by gunmen at satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, including Houellebecq’s friend, Bernard Maris. It sold 120,000 copies in its first five days on sale in France. Now it has nudged Ian McEwan’s The Children’s Act off the top spot of Germany’s charts.
[...]

Ok, well, I clearly made a mistake about what Tyrion was responding to. Apologies for this.

I do think the same comments would apply to being interrupted, though.

I think it highly likely that men interrupt women more than they do other men. It certainly fits with my own casual observations.

However, I still think its useful to have some sort of sociological study into the matter, through observation of group dynamics etc. by a non-participant third party.

I suppose I agree with the conclusion ("men interrupt women a lot") but I'm unsure about the validity of the argument. After all, plenty of heterosexual men would claim to have a "lived experience" that their female partners nag them to death, but I'm not so inclined to take this at face value.

Anyway, what's everyone think about this Charlie Hebdo business then? ;)

However, I still think its useful to have some sort of sociological study into the matter

There have been loads already.
http://people.uncw.edu/hakanr/documents/genderandinterruption.pdf
http://www.interruptions.net/literature/Smith-Lovin-AmerSocRev89.pdf
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/5/8/law-school-gender-classroom/
http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/how-schools-shortchange-girls-executive-summary.pdf

And I'm sure that spending more than a couple of minutes on google would turn up a few more but there again, don't take my word for it.

Thanks Fleur, that's really interesting.

(Just to clarify, I wasn't asking you or anyone else to look these up for me, I was just defending in principle the validity of seeking to conduct such studies. I'm already pretty convinced of that men do interrupt women more. However, I am nevertheless grateful for the links, so thanks.)

After all, plenty of heterosexual men would claim to have a "lived experience" that their female partners nag them to death, but I'm not so inclined to take this at face value.

What the fuck has that got to do with anything? And equivocating that with political meetings... well... just not the same.

S. Artesian

How lovely, more junior debating club and the long winter hours just flew by.

You are attempting to position me as having made an ’equal pay for equal work’ claim, which on being called on you have now changed to “I'm asking if you came up with anything that indicates that the reported variance in pay by gender is an not an accurate evaluation of the real conditions of work in capitalist society,” which doesn’t quite mean the same thing now does it?

You wrote ‘I'm not charging you with anything. You said the analyses of gender based pay gaps don't hold up to scrutiny.’

But astonishingly in my post #286, sentence 3 (is this really necessary?), I wrote ‘And the methodologies I've encountered SO FAR for calculating a gender pay gap seem not to hold up to much scrutiny,’ after which came sentence number 4, in which I wrote ‘But I am not claiming to know anything with absolute certainty and will need to spend a lot more time on it before making up my own mind.’

There seems to be an obvious pattern in your approach. In your opening salvo you came out with ‘That bit about gender pay gap methodologies. Do explain and do tell us what the errors in methodology mean for the gap, or is it your contention that there is no gap?’ – in which you appear to be asking about my interest in and questioning of methodologies, in addition to ignoring my explicit telegraphing of the fact that I had not made up my mind about what I’ve been looking at yet.

But then, in your very next post, you wrote ‘But if you have data that refutes this: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf, I'd be happy to see it. When I say data of course I'm not interested in disputing methodology, I'm interested in a more accurate presentation of the real conditions under examination.’

Is this perhaps because you quite understandably don’t wish to discuss the (invariably very subjective)methodology used to construct these BLS estimates, and they are ALL estimates? Surely the methods used to create any statistics is inherently part of their presentation of any ‘real conditions under examination’?

Are we there yet grandpa?

Tyrion

Ok you’re more pure than me or something, I get the message but I’m still going to have a look at some of the methods being used to discuss these very real issues even if that offends you. I have not denied the existence of a gender pay gap, domestic violence, rape/sexual assault or any of the other severe problems that plague our capitalist utopia. I’d like to find out more about how numbers connected with them have been generated. Your creation of a caricature of what I’m doing doesn’t interest me but since it neither helps nor harms me in learning more, go right ahead if that’s the sort of thing that makes you happy.

autogestión

I have no objection to studying it in detail and that’s what I’m trying to do, as carefully as I know how to, since all manner of factors can be adjusted for when creating statistics, which can then be disseminated for all sorts of reasons. I have no doubt that there's a pay gap but I’d like to see for myself what goes into creating the popular numbers people toss around, some of which are very crude. A google search on the popular assertion ‘for every dollar a man makes a woman makes 77 cents’ produces 32 million web sites, but I’d like to know a little more about the origins of this number and how it is used.

factvalue

S. Artesian

How lovely, more junior debating club and the long winter hours just flew by.

You are attempting to position me as having made an ’equal pay for equal work’ claim, which on being called on you have now changed to “I'm asking if you came up with anything that indicates that the reported variance in pay by gender is an not an accurate evaluation of the real conditions of work in capitalist society,” which doesn’t quite mean the same thing now does it?

You wrote ‘I'm not charging you with anything. You said the analyses of gender based pay gaps don't hold up to scrutiny.’

But astonishingly in my post #286, sentence 3 (is this really necessary?), I wrote ‘And the methodologies I've encountered SO FAR for calculating a gender pay gap seem not to hold up to much scrutiny,’ after which came sentence number 4, in which I wrote ‘But I am not claiming to know anything with absolute certainty and will need to spend a lot more time on it before making up my own mind.’

There seems to be an obvious pattern in your approach. In your opening salvo you came out with ‘That bit about gender pay gap methodologies. Do explain and do tell us what the errors in methodology mean for the gap, or is it your contention that there is no gap?’ – in which you appear to be asking about my interest in and questioning of methodologies, in addition to my explicit telegraphing of the fact that I had not made up my mind about what I’ve been looking at yet.

But then, in your very next post, you wrote ‘But if you have data that refutes this: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf, I'd be happy to see it. When I say data of course I'm not interested in disputing methodology, I'm interested in a more accurate presentation of the real conditions under examination.’

Is this perhaps because you quite understandably don’t wish to discuss the (invariably very subjective)methodology used to construct these BLS estimates, and they are ALL estimates? Surely the methods used to create any statistics is inherently part of their presentation of any ‘real conditions under examination’?

Are we there yet grandpa?

Not even close. The more of your contortionist prose I read, the more I'm convinced commieprincess had you nailed right from the getgo.

You indicated that you suspect the gender pay gap on the basis of disputed methodologies. Your argument is that the contention of a gender pay gap is questionable because the methodologies don't hold up to scrutiny. That sounds to me, despite your protests and expanded protests, that you have studied this area enough to have reached a conclusion-- the conclusion being that the evidence does not support the contention of a gender based pay gap.

I am precisely not interested in esoteric arguments about statistical regression, or sample size, or, "above-standard" deviations. I am interested in what evidence you have studied that makes you think that contentions of a gender pay gap are inaccurate, not supported by evidence, which means I'd like to see your evidence.

In any case, the fact that you haven't bother to produce a shred of data that indicates that the studies of gender pay gap that analyze and quantify that gap are inaccurate, mistaken, or inconclusive, but rather want to engage in this word play...reminds me of someone else who barks a lot about methodology but can't bite when it comes to delivering the goods of material analysis: Rosa Lichtenstein-- one or all five of them.

Are you any relation to her/it/them? She's a jerk too.

Comparing someone to Rosa Lichtenstein... a real burn.

S. Cartesian

That was quick! I'm neither impressed nor prepared to put forward anything until I'm satisfied with what I've found out, so bark away it won't make the slightest difference to me.

You indicated that you suspect the gender pay gap on the basis of disputed methodologies.

I suspect it of being subjectively created, and therefore of having different values depending on what you control for, as with all statistics in the social sciences. Controversial I know but there it is. Beyond that I have not found out enough yet so have a 'significant' opinion. You apparently have. Good for you!

Once again, I'm not going to sacrifice a single second of my private time to junior debating club but I do actually want to find things out, which might take a little longer.

I don't know who Rosa Lichtenstein is, or who the hell you are for that matter beyond an internet entity that enjoys bandying around a hard-edged, corny macho materialist image.

I suspect it of being subjectively created

For what purpose?

factvalue, I realise now you're just a misunderstood maverick. You may not play by the rules, but by god, do you cut through this whole "patriarchy" nonsense.

Really you're just a courageous lone wolf on a mission to find out if all this stuff women keep whinging about actually lives up to your singularly meticulous scrutiny. Because, ultimately, the problem is definitely an OVER exaggeration of misogyny. Seriously, women will not just shut up about that shit. And like you say, women do jabber on a lot.

We both know it's probably not that bad, so kudos for soldiering on against the grain, and really finding out whether it's actually 2 women a week who are killed by their partners/ex-partners, or if that's just misandrist propaganda and really it's 1.8. If anything, women probably over report rape and sexual violence. They do tend to blow things out of proportion, don't they!

Seriously? I got a down vote for asking a question? Three words and a question mark? I was just curious.

For what purpose?

Whatever you conceive to be important when creating the analysis will influence your choice of what goes into the analysis. This will vary from person to person. I don't think you could say there is one overall purpose, unless you're rather crudely steering me toward admitting that 'YES GODAMMIT!! The Fempire did it!!' or something.

factvalue, I realise now you're just a misunderstood maverick. You may not play by the rules, but by god, do you cut through this whole "patriarchy" nonsense.

Really you're just a courageous lone wolf on a mission to find out if all this stuff women keep whinging about actually lives up to your singularly meticulous scrutiny. Because, ultimately, the problem is definitely an OVER exaggeration of misogyny. Seriously, women will not just shut up about that shit. And like you say, women do jabber on a lot.

We both know it's probably not that bad, so kudos for soldiering on against the grain, and really finding out whether it's actually 2 women a week who are killed by their partners/ex-partners, or if that's just misandrist propaganda and really it's 1.8. If anything, women probably over report rape and sexual violence. They do tend to blow things out of proportion, don't they!

More cartoons eh? Well whatever pulls your chain dude but you're merely repeating yourself in the most unsophisticated and obvious fashion. In case you're considering delivering another blistering iteration of this unique devil-may-care cutting-edge comedy, before you start typing tell someone you trust first will you? I'm sure there must be a helpline.

Anyway playtimes over for me now and I'm off home. Bye bye!

Fleur

Seriously? I got a down vote for asking a question? Three words and a question mark? I was just curious.

Don't worry about this ridiculous "voting." There's no accounting for it, comrade. It's just for entertainment purposes.

So you have "suspicions" but no idea whatsoever about whether or not a gender pay gap exists. That's perfect.

Got it.

Perfect.

Thanks for the clarification.

factvalue

In case you're considering delivering another blistering iteration of this unique devil-may-care cutting-edge comedy, before you start typing tell someone you trust first will you? I'm sure there must be a helpline.

You, on the other hand, are a joke that just keeps giving.

factvalue

More cartoons eh? Well whatever pulls your chain dude but you're merely repeating yourself in the most unsophisticated and obvious fashion. In case you're considering delivering another blistering iteration of this unique devil-may-care cutting-edge comedy, before you start typing tell someone you trust first will you? I'm sure there must be a helpline.

Anyway playtimes over for me now and I'm off home. Bye bye!

Gee, glad we have a sophisticated intellectual here to put those hysterical women in their place.

Anyway, talking of cartoons, I got at the booze and this fell out of my head:

(Clickety click for biggsies!)

I actually do think now is the time for Sue Pollard. Can I?

Omen

I had such high hopes when I started looking at it but it just reminded me of why I don't get hammered much any more. It really wants to be epigrammatic and sarcastic and brilliant but it's actually just puerile, tepid arse water.

Could you let me in on one secret, just 'tween us comrades: What makes one person's experience of the rate of interruption considered valid and another's completely invalid? Your thoughts?

I'm interested in getting at the truth of these issues and I really can't see any second-rate 'cartoonist' scratching per spots, glugging down booze and jerking off deflecting me in any way.

petey - My former wife was a very violent woman, I left her ten years ago. She was seriously unpredictable and would use anything to hand to beat me and our children. She was particularly uncontrolled with my eldest son. I had to lock the two of us in the bathroom for several hours at one point until she'd stopped trying to break the door down, calmed down and left the house. Her mother was a radical feminist and I remember at the time of the Bobbitt case asking them if they would have found it as hilarious if he had cut off his wife's breasts and thrown them into a bin. But maybe, like the interruption thing, that was also a stupid sexist question, I really don't know? Anyway, it goes almost without saying that my ex got custody of our two boys and then refused to let us see each other for a couple of years afterwards. I did get to see my oldest son after she phoned to tell me he'd been sexually assaulted in a park and was in a state and asking for me. I came round and took him out to try to help him not get phobic about going outside and not blame himself and that, we actually managed to have a decent time together in the circumstances because it had been so long and we were just glad to see each other. He asked me to come back next day. When I arrived she told me that I wasn't needed and that she was going to call the police if I didn't go away.

I suppose I'm going to be asked if I expect to be believed now by the debating club. Go right ahead I'm not a member. I'm a lone maverick and your weird right-on logic doesn't work on me. I will simply be continuing to study the issues that have come up here for as long as it takes to come to some satisfying understanding. But since some club members are demanding a hard-hitting whistle-stop tour (as they say on the railroads) of my arguments for positions I don't claim to hold and some are saying such things only matter to sexist French liberal math geeks or something, I'm unclear about what the instructions are and will need further clarification from your committee before I go to press.

Sounds like you've been listening to Otis Redding's "Mr. Pitiful."

No mostly Tristan und Isolde atm. What about yourself?

I listen to Otis, and Carla, and Aretha, and James, and the Funkadelics, and Beethoven all the time.

Keep digging factvalue.

factvalue,

I really really think you should wind your neck in a little. You have obviously had a shitty time with abusive ex partners and extrapolating from that to question stats on gendered pay gaps and violence toward women. Yes alot of mens pay is lower than womens, men do suffer terrible domestic violence from female partners. The stats however suggest time and time again that women disproportionately suffer from domestic violence and poorer wages. This in no way should take anything away from your experiences at the hands of a violent partner, and if the idiots and ideologues try to silence you then keep talking, you may find allies where you never thought you would find them. But you really don't need to prove some grand anti male conspiracy at play to validate your experience, there lies madness.

factvalue,

I don't know exactly how, or more importantly why, you have turned a thread about 18 people recently murdered in Paris, and the resulting backlash, into one all about you. But you have.

I'm not going to congratulate you on this achievement. But can I ask whether you intend to do this on any thread that is not sufficiently about you, or just ones where someone makes mention of gender issues?

edit: also... that thing about interrupting and hijacking conversations? Srsly? Look at this thread and you, ffs.

Khawaga I will.

Mr Jolly Thanks. I assure you that I don't believe in any grand conspiracy. I just want to get a deeper understanding of a factor which I have personally experienced as a potential threat to working class solidarity.

ocelot To be a little more objective you should now ask this of those others who have been contributing to this development. Because things have moved on I think it's now you that is interrupting btw.

I know I'm sort of derailing a derail here, but is there no facility for taking a chunk of the posts in a thread and splitting them off into a separate thread? Is that something mods on here have the ability to do? That way people who want to keep on with this discussion can do so, and people who want to keep on discussing Charlie Hebdo don't have to feel like the whole thread has gone down some blind alley.

Le Monde Libertaire has a special issue on Charlie Hebdo. It can be downloaded here.

http://poulaille.org/spip.php?article246

Ce numéro spécial est un recueil d’articles proposés par des militants de la Fédération anarchiste ayant souhaité réagir à l’attentat commis le 7 janvier dans les locaux de Charlie Hebdo, à celui perpétré contre l’épicerie casher de la porte de Vincennes à Paris le 9 janvier, aux événements qui ont suivi, et à leurs conséquences déjà visibles : au fil des réactions, il reflète l’expression ouverte de multiples sensibilités que l’on croise au sein de la Fédération.

Souvenirs, archives, témoignages d’amitié et de reconnaissance (Cabu, Luz, Charb, Tignous avaient maintes fois fraternellement prêté leur talent à certains de nos groupes ou de nos militants), mais aussi regards critiques et analyses : les pages qui suivent sont une sélection que nous avons voulu représentative de cette diversité.

Nous vous invitons à considérer ces propos comme le point de départ de discussions qui ne pourront qu’être enrichissantes pour tous : la liberté d’expression – au delà d’être devenue ces derniers jours l’incantation creuse de ceux qui n’ont de hâte que de l’enterrer – reste pour nous le seul remède à l’enfermement de la pensée, et ne saurait avoir de valeur sans esprit critique.

Combattre l’obscurantisme, qu’il soit religieux, politique ou social, est pour nous un combat plus que jamais d’actualité.

Thanks for bringing the thread back on topic, Mark. As Autogestion says, can the mods split this thread please?

thanks to autogestion for proposing that the threads be split.

In unexpectedly cheery related news:

Indy: Front National family feud? Marine Le Pen and her relatives clash over French far-right party's response to Paris terror attacks

The three-day jihadist rampage in Paris has claimed an unlikely collateral victim – the façade of unity and moderation in the far-right Front National.
.
In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre and other attacks, the FN president, Marine Le Pen, has been confronted in recent days with undisguised Islamophobia in the highest reaches of her supposedly “de-demonised” party.
.
Three senior figures – her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, her increasingly powerful niece, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, and her international adviser, Aymeric Chauprade – have openly challenged Ms Le Pen’s guarded response to the terrorist attacks.
[...]
In an attempt to evade what she sees as the electoral trap of extremism or overt racism, Ms Le Pen has blamed radical Islam, immigration and open EU borders but she has not attacked Islam or France’s 4,700,000 Muslims.
.
Mr Chauprade, head of the FN group in the European parliament, directly challenged this cautious approach. He posted a video online which claimed that up to 1,000,000 French Muslims represented a “fifth column” of “potential terrorists”. He said that France was “at war with Muslims, possibly not with all Muslims, but with Muslims”.
.
Marine Le Pen disassociated herself from the video and dismissed Mr Chauprade as her foreign adviser and group leader in Strasbourg. Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, one of only two FN deputies in the National Assembly, tweeted a link to the video after it had been rejected by her aunt. Ms Maréchal-Le Pen, though only 25, is increasingly seen as a hard-line rival to Marine, under the influence of the grumpily unreconstructed Jean-Marie.
[...]
The claim that the FN has “evolved” under Marine Le Pen into an odourless, non-racist, nationalist party has often been exposed as a façade. Most outbreaks of old thinking have occurred, however, among relatively obscure local officials and candidates. Marine’s efforts to reposition the party have now been challenged by her father, her niece and her chief foreign adviser.
.
While she continues to ride relatively high in the opinion polls and make gains in elections, Ms Le Pen is untouchable, party officials say. Much will depend on how well the FN fares in a parliamentary by-election this weekend and at local elections in March.

ocelot

In unexpectedly cheery related news:

Indy: Front National family feud? Marine Le Pen and her relatives clash over French far-right party's response to Paris terror attacks

The three-day jihadist rampage in Paris has claimed an unlikely collateral victim – the façade of unity and moderation in the far-right Front National.
.
In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre and other attacks, the FN president, Marine Le Pen, has been confronted in recent days with undisguised Islamophobia in the highest reaches of her supposedly “de-demonised” party.
.
Three senior figures – her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, her increasingly powerful niece, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, and her international adviser, Aymeric Chauprade – have openly challenged Ms Le Pen’s guarded response to the terrorist attacks.
[...]
In an attempt to evade what she sees as the electoral trap of extremism or overt racism, Ms Le Pen has blamed radical Islam, immigration and open EU borders but she has not attacked Islam or France’s 4,700,000 Muslims.
.
Mr Chauprade, head of the FN group in the European parliament, directly challenged this cautious approach. He posted a video online which claimed that up to 1,000,000 French Muslims represented a “fifth column” of “potential terrorists”. He said that France was “at war with Muslims, possibly not with all Muslims, but with Muslims”.
.
Marine Le Pen disassociated herself from the video and dismissed Mr Chauprade as her foreign adviser and group leader in Strasbourg. Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, one of only two FN deputies in the National Assembly, tweeted a link to the video after it had been rejected by her aunt. Ms Maréchal-Le Pen, though only 25, is increasingly seen as a hard-line rival to Marine, under the influence of the grumpily unreconstructed Jean-Marie.
[...]
The claim that the FN has “evolved” under Marine Le Pen into an odourless, non-racist, nationalist party has often been exposed as a façade. Most outbreaks of old thinking have occurred, however, among relatively obscure local officials and candidates. Marine’s efforts to reposition the party have now been challenged by her father, her niece and her chief foreign adviser.
.
While she continues to ride relatively high in the opinion polls and make gains in elections, Ms Le Pen is untouchable, party officials say. Much will depend on how well the FN fares in a parliamentary by-election this weekend and at local elections in March.

I guess the quenelle is out of fashion for Le Pen, the jihadis should have stuck to killing jews.

In rather less cheery news...

As a vignette of the kind of hysteria going on, in Nice an 8 year old child was dragged to the police station for interrogation after refusing to observe the mandatory minutes silence in all schools, declaring he was "with the terrorists".

The family lawyer accuses the head of school of having banged the kids head against a table and slapped him.

For good measure, the 8-year old's younger brothers, 3 & 4 years old, have since been taken out of nursery school into state care for what, the state maintains, is an "entirely unconnected" allegation of threat of parental violence.
le Point (fr): Polémique sur la convocation d'un enfant de 8 ans dans un commissariat

Republican values at work.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was a crisis in bourgeois journalism.

The 8 year old, referred to above by Ocelot, did not know what the word terrorism meant according to the Guardian today. Other children, we may suspect non-white, have been taken in for questioning by police and a number of drunks shouting Hebdo-related abuse have been fast-tracked and sentenced to up to four years for "supporting terrorism". Another individual with learning difficulties has been sentenced to six months in jail for "supporting terrorism". This from the state that gave us the Dreyfus Affair, concentration camps and xyclon B in order to assist with the Final Solution, dead French Algerians floating down the Seine and Johnny Halliday.

What's up with Johnny Halliday?

I appreciate the sentiment, but technically I believe the first use of concentrations camps was not by the French, but by (and almost simultaneously) by the Spanish General Weyler in Cuba against the 1890s revolution, and the British in South Africa during the Boer War.

That's from memory, which is certainly no guarantee, so maybe you've got it right.

I thought Zyklon B was a product of IG Farben-- the German chemical combine, invented in the 1920s by a German company that was later absorbed into IG Farben in some sort of stock deal.

That thing about Johnny Halliday-- that's just spot on.

I agree on the origins of concentration camps from S.A., internment camps in France is probably more accurate. At any rate Jews and dissidents were sent from these to the concentration camps proper. I read a while ago that the French were involved in developing Zyklon B during the war but I can't find any link and may be wrong on this.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B
No big deal but this link seems to point to the production of Zyklon b in France and its transportation to Germany.

Serge Forward

What's up with Johnny Halliday?

1. poser. Or should that be poseur?
2. Sarkozy supporter

More from Maryam Namazie

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2015/01/30/culture-of-offence/

Mark,

Thanks for posting the above. I think the following is excellent:

"Both the far-Right and “respectable racism” of UKIP on the one hand and the pro-Islamist Left of the likes of SWP and George Galloway on the other see Muslims as a homogeneous group and equate them with Islamists. Both have got it wrong. The far-Right blames all “Muslims” for Islamism’s crimes – even though they are its first victims and on the frontlines of resistance – and the pro-Islamist Left defends Islamism as a “defence” of Muslims."

A different perspective to Namazie's amalgam of an abstract Islamism as undifferentiated "international fascist movement", uniting the mutually hostile tendencies of Iranian Shia theocracy, Saudi Wahhabism and Qatari/Turkish Ikhwanism.

Not sure how useful the "moderate" tag is, in reality, but the politics of conflict certainly produce a more nuanced outcome than the broad brush strokes of Namazie's caricature.

AM: Moderate Islam pushes back extremism

[...]
Egypt's Al-Azhar fully condemned the terrorist incident, while Iraqi clerics and authorities criticized the attack and Shiite cleric Sayyed Hussein al-Sadr condemned the behavior of militant groups that made the Prophet Muhammad appear as a “butcher.”
.
Tehran’s substitute Friday prayer leader Ahmad Khatami condemned the attack, saying, “We fully condemn this terrorist act and announce that Islam does not allow the killing of innocent people.” This position is a radical change in the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose founder’s fatwa calling for the death of novelist Salman Rushdie had set a precedent for fatwas against those insulting Islamic sanctities.
[...]

Zizek:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/2015/02/05/slavoj-zizek/in-the-grey-zone

LOL at how many on this thread continues to blame

a) Muslims (ahem sorry I mean IslamISTS, ie Muslims who don't do the honourable thing and keep it in the privacy of their own home)

b) women (!!!!)

...while the ongoing racist attacks on Muslims/Muslim looking people and silencing of dissent and discussion within France are brushed under the carpet (with only passing mentions by the anti-CH and complete ignorance on the pro-CH crowd, like I predicted).

It's almost as if some posters' 'anarchism' is actually inextricably entangled within the thoroughly unpalatable tradition of French republicanism. This is what I'm talking about when I call anarchism Eurocentric, but that's for a different thread.

Caiman del Barrio

LOL at how many on this thread continues to blame

a) Muslims (ahem sorry I mean IslamISTS, ie Muslims who don't do the honourable thing and keep it in the privacy of their own home)

b) women (!!!!)

...while the ongoing racist attacks on Muslims/Muslim looking people and silencing of dissent and discussion within France are brushed under the carpet (with only passing mentions by the anti-CH and complete ignorance on the pro-CH crowd, like I predicted).

It's almost as if some posters' 'anarchism' is actually inextricably entangled within the thoroughly unpalatable tradition of French republicanism. This is what I'm talking about when I call anarchism Eurocentric, but that's for a different thread.

Think its maybe you who are conflating 'muslims' with islamists :/ thus playing that othering game.

Could you please be specific/constructive with your criticisms.

LOL at how many on this thread continues to blame
a) Muslims (ahem sorry I mean IslamISTS, ie Muslims who don't do the honourable thing and keep it in the privacy of their own home)

blame muslims for what? your post imo lacks nuance and seems to be stuck in some false binary between 'muslims' vs French republican values.

I don't understand why one can't oppose anti-semitism, islamophobia and the (French) state's hypocrisy/authoritarianism in equal measure in favour of a +secular/progressive religious, +w/c libertarian response. It's not a ruddy competition!

I don't have time to post long haven't been able to digest all the posts - some about women make no sense

Rob Ray : I'm sorry you think I'm being disingenous, everything I've typed I swear on mother's life is true:- it's what I've experienced or what's happened.
I have never ever said even though I've been accused of it twice the anarchist movement or anarchist groups should do this or that thing against Islamists in Britain. I think the distinction between over here and over there is no longer as meaningful as it once was. For a start there's plenty more people on short visas moving in and out all the time, the activities of people in Islamist organisations are prone to pushing right-wing narratives of 'Muslims are always victims of the west, we're being victimised' can be people with connections to different places around the world or people from .
About 500 might be a small number but it's still a problem that that many went to Syria to ally with the Sunni Islamists in part by becoming suicide bombers or throat slitters doing the most vicious or unpleasant tasks.

My feeling even from before 9/11 and the Iraq war was that Islamist or conservative Muslim activities within the Turkish diaspora in Europe have been growing to steadily replace the idea of Turkish culture bond. They've have been supported by Muslim capitalists to undercut and muscle out the nationalist or leftist alternatives.

Generally: In London for instance right now the ATDB/UETD offer supplementary lessons (for their purposes of course) in various subjects in a single-sex "Muslim" - what they perceive to be Muslim - environment and they can give good money well above the going rate for teachers. By contrast a leftist versions of the same social provision in mixed classes (with efforts to do stuff with other language groups etc) gets very limited you get expenses which is next to nothing.
Are those leftist alternatives perfect ? no far from it - they're full of backward or incorrect ideas as well but they won't let people grow up in a way that **really** backward ideas will help "their" "people".

Unfortunately certain backward ideas in my experience are prevalent in parts of diasporas from Muslim nations. I don't have masses and masses data but there is stuff done by pollsters which shows bad trends

One example on page 8 http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/byjw8evl6d/YG-University-of-Lancaster-results-Archive-300130-religion-gender-debate.pdf

29% of Muslims believe segregated education is very appropriate, 18% of Hindus, 9% of Jews, 7% of Sikhs, 6% of Catholics. Obviously numerically the Catholics are the major group in Britain as numbers but the shift or trend to the right which produces harder Islamism is there in those pockets. Does this mean vilify Islam and let Hinduism or Catholicism off the hook or vice versa? No. But there are strong bedrock anti-working class trends, which sometimes mutate in the hands of ultras to promote these attitudes which do these attacks.

We won't get change until things in the apple cart are upset a little. I'm culturally Muslim but I'm a red and so I accept that free expression in all its forms - not deriding the non-racist anti-racist as racists and Islamophobes - is our lifeline. I've never called the Quran to be racist - it's a work of its time and society that's my materialist approach, likewise people shouldn't call Charlie Hebdo racist and urge it not to do drawings of Mohammed, upholding the taboo.

Caiman: I'm not sure what the non-Eurocentric ideal you're aiming at would be. You should expand what you're saying. That far-right or hard nationalist currents in Europe wouldn't capitalise on planned multiple Islamist attacks on office building, publishing works and supermarket. They definitely would and I'm opposed to them. I'm officially immigrant, an infant immigrant but still immigrant from outside Europe geographically so I'm interested in this non-Eurocentric idea.
I'm against the French state's restrictions on freedom of publication, and always have been, which were also applied to Charlie Hebdo in the 1990s. A coalition tried to prosecute Charlie Hebdo in 2008 under similar laws.

I personally like the idea of keep your religion private - at home - you can be Hindu Christian or Muslim but it stays in temple church mosque and doesn't go into politics, trade, medicine, childcare, education, youth work those things are socialised for all. How we get there is of course a challenge.

Ocelot: By chance I've read Mamouri on Al Monitor before he has no class analysis and fails to see that Iran government is trying to get back onto good terms with the West and has no interest in anything even remotely like the Rushdie affair, it's trying to promote a responsible face to work together against ISIS, reduce financial sanctions etc. However the Iranian government did arrest editors of a newspaper which featured the second cover as a news item.

This is his background a standard pro-Tehran pro-Shiite Islam voice hence anti-IS and the rest.
https://theconversation.com/profiles/ali-mamouri-125436

The claim: "The Muslim world largely responded by denouncing the terrorist act, not the cartoons" is not accurate the cartoons were heavily decried as Islamophobia and racism by governments and religious figures from Turkey to Indonesia, the terrorism was denounced by very many but sizeable minorities considered it part of a "Western" conspiracy action.

Mr. Jolly

Caiman del Barrio

LOL at how many on this thread continues to blame

a) Muslims (ahem sorry I mean IslamISTS, ie Muslims who don't do the honourable thing and keep it in the privacy of their own home)

b) women (!!!!)

...while the ongoing racist attacks on Muslims/Muslim looking people and silencing of dissent and discussion within France are brushed under the carpet (with only passing mentions by the anti-CH and complete ignorance on the pro-CH crowd, like I predicted).

It's almost as if some posters' 'anarchism' is actually inextricably entangled within the thoroughly unpalatable tradition of French republicanism. This is what I'm talking about when I call anarchism Eurocentric, but that's for a different thread.

Think its maybe you who are conflating 'muslims' with islamists :/ thus playing that othering game.

What, how?

The conflation of Islamists and Muslims has already happened anyway; you can't move for Youtube videos/press stories of French 'secularists' attacking people in public for their choice of clothes/facial hair/failure to sufficiently participate in the five minutes of hate against 'terrorism'.

wojtek

Could you please be specific/constructive with your criticisms.

LOL at how many on this thread continues to blame
a) Muslims (ahem sorry I mean IslamISTS, ie Muslims who don't do the honourable thing and keep it in the privacy of their own home)

blame muslims for what? your post imo lacks nuance and seems to be stuck in some false binary between 'muslims' vs French republican values.

Well maybe that's cos that is precisely where the 'liberal'/'secular'/'republican' discourse in France is at right now: the notion that publicly ostentatious Muslims are at odds with the monochrome, universalist 'Frenchness'. The hypocrisy in this has already been pointed out by more eloquent and more patient posters than I: the way in which France has made a particular point of criminalising eg anti-Semitic speech (which in their opinion ranges from Holocaust denial to pro-Palestine demos, all the while allowing street gangs like the Jewish Youth League [?] to openly organise). There is clearly an overt hostility towards Islam in the French state hidden behind the canard of state secularism.

Armed islamism as a movement in Europe is highly disparate, dysfunctional and minoritarian, yet despite that, we've seen some frankly embarrassing attempts to ape the discourse of not just Cameron and Hollande but also Le Pen, Griffin and Breivik by wildly exaggerating itsinfluence and significance. I would say that Islamist insurrectionism is possibly not even in the top 20 threats facing the European working class right now and the fact that it's even a controversial discussion topic is largely due to manipulation by a desperate ruling class. Of course, in addition to this, it's worth speculating whether the strategy of the NATO governments in talking up al'Qua'ida etc isn't deliberately provocative, so that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, which makes many of us dupes, tbh.

I don't understand why one can't oppose anti-semitism, islamophobia and the (French) state's hypocrisy/authoritarianism in equal measure in favour of a +secular/progressive religious, +w/c libertarian response. It's not a ruddy competition!

Yes OK but do you provide an "equal" opposition to, say, gremlins as you would climate change. or do you measure your response and approach relative to the size of the threat? I mean, how far can we go with this logic? Should we 'equally' oppose domestic violence against men by women, as women by men, or do we equate false rape allegations resulting in conviction with unconvicted rape, or do we recognise that the two phenomena, while both extant, are on different orders of magnitude?

sihhi

Caiman: I'm not sure what the non-Eurocentric ideal you're aiming at would be. You should expand what you're saying. That far-right or hard nationalist currents in Europe wouldn't capitalise on planned multiple Islamist attacks on office building, publishing works and supermarket. They definitely would and I'm opposed to them. I'm officially immigrant, an infant immigrant but still immigrant from outside Europe geographically so I'm interested in this non-Eurocentric idea.

This thread is already Byzantine enough in terms of rather shocking revelations and statements by some posters, which to me, indicates a failure to critically analyse the spectacle of European political discourse, as well as take lessons from history, so i will neglect to talk about some sort of non-Eurocentric anarchism right here, for the time being. Instead, I think we should note how anarchism's history is linked to French republicanism/liberalism, and this is greatly to its detriment, IMO.

From what I can gather from your posts here, you're much closer to the relatively small phenomenon of Islamist radicalism, so perhaps it is a more pressing need for you. I've also spoken about how my personal relationships have influenced my attitude here. I have to say though, reading posts from people in Newcastle (?) - a city recently chosen as the site of PEGIDA UK's first ever demo (reason: "there aren't many Muslims there") - on the imminent threat of insurrectionist Islamism is rather incredible.

I've said from the start, in fact as soon as I heard of the attacks, that the real fear we should have is of revenge attacks and a further hardening of white European attitudes towards Muslims/Muslim looking people. This has already materialised in a variety of ways, and it will continue to grow, with bearded Arabs being heckled in the street, 8 year olds being physically assaulted by adults due to their 'political' statements, and far right types entering mosques with knives, rubbing bacon across the door handles, etc.

Simultaneous to this however, we see a government trying to 'ban' halal slaughter (I'm with Brand on this one: if you object to halal slaughter, go vegetarian) and, over the last couple of days, a series of press articles about how it's unsafe to be a Jew in the UK. Of course, any racist attack is abhorrent and I note how there's an antifa mobilisation in Stamford Hill today against old school anti-Semitic Nazis, but the lack of coverage given to anti-Islam attacks across Europe is frankly astounding.

What, how?
The conflation of Islamists and Muslims has already happened anyway

You don't just go along with the 'class of civilisations' rhetoric anyway, side with the other to the detriment of progressive voices in that 'community'. Terrorism may not be a threat but conservatism is, whether it's gender segregation in universities, homophobia, apostate, etc.

you can't move for Youtube videos/press stories of French 'secularists' attacking people in public for their choice of clothes/

Before I do a strawman what's your view on the hijab & niqab?

Yes OK but do you provide an "equal" opposition to, say, gremlins as you would climate change. or do you measure your response and approach relative to the size of the threat? I mean, how far can we go with this logic?

It means also opposing the rise in anti-semitism:
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7552943/france-anti-semitism
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/france-jewish-shops-riot_n_5608612.html

Why you even read the posts on here by folk like ocelot, Mark, Rachel and sawatal?

Edit: Sorry, I meant to ask 'Have you read' - bit tired lol

wojtek

What, how?
The conflation of Islamists and Muslims has already happened anyway

You don't just go along with the 'class of civilisations' rhetoric anyway, side with the other to the detriment of progressive voices in that 'community'. Terrorism may not be a threat but conservatism is, whether it's gender segregation in universities, homophobia, apostate, etc.

Hi Wojtek, I'm sorry but could you possibly flesh this out a bit? I'm struggling to follow you: are you claiming that I'm reinforcing 'clash (?) of civilisations' rhetoric? My intention is to demonstrate how Charlie Hebdo, their supporters, and those who wildly exaggerate the threat of Islamist insurrectionism are doing just that, alongside the European ruling class and the backers of Islamist cells in Europe.

you can't move for Youtube videos/press stories of French 'secularists' attacking people in public for their choice of clothes/

Before I do a strawman what's your view on the hijab & niqab?

I'm not sure whether my opinion matters really, since I'll never have to wear one.

I mean obviously, I accept that these are generally misogynistic pieces of clothing, and some of the justifications I've heard for them (ie that men are pigs and can't be trusted not to rape women otherwise) are not only patently false (sexual assault on Muslim women is still extremely high, if not higher, after all) but also victim-blaming.

I think what's lacking though is a proper understanding of why some women choose to wear these clothes. My anecdotal understanding is it's not always due to social/familial pressure, and in fact, it often takes on a conscious choice to identify oneself as a Muslim woman. I think the problem with western discourses about Muslim female dress is that they - just like most things in this society - exclude the agency of the women in question.

Either way, if we are to oppose state bans on freedom of expression, then surely we should be against state bans on personal dress, equally the restrictive legislation that forces 'modesty' on Iranian women as the legislation that restricts it for French women?

Yes OK but do you provide an "equal" opposition to, say, gremlins as you would climate change. or do you measure your response and approach relative to the size of the threat? I mean, how far can we go with this logic?

It means also opposing the rise in anti-semitism:
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7552943/france-anti-semitism
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/france-jewish-shops-riot_n_5608612.html

Yes, it's horrible. France has a historic issue with anti-Semitism, of course (Vichy etc), but my understanding is that anti-semitism receives far more coverage and condemnation than Islamophobic attacks. Not being Chomsky and not having the time or inclination to compare column inches on the two subjects, this will have to remain in the arena of supposition. In the UK however, the right-wing press is making a huge fuss about the 'dangers' of living as a Jew over here, while ignoring the daily threats faced by Muslims, LGBT, etc.

I'm sorry but could you possibly flesh this out a bit? I'm struggling to follow you: are you claiming that I'm reinforcing 'clash (?) of civilisations' rhetoric?

I thought you were deflecting criticism of any strands of islam and/or some who practice it, and minimising the anti-semitic attacks in France, by saying the REAL problem is racist attacks on muslims, but I know now that wasn't your intention. Soz.

I agree with you re. dress. If there is coercion on the family's part, would it fall into the category of domestic violence and be a matter for relevent charities/services (whose funding is ironically being cut)?

Have a lovely weekend watching Scrubs! ;)

I haven't read all of this thoroughly and I don't want to get into a question about some Muslim women's clothes, some aspects of which are also expressed by Orthodox Jews, but I agree with Caiman's main point, which is the demonsation of Muslims across Europe. It was from the corridors of the USA and Britain, with some influence from the Christian Fundamentalist wing of these states, that the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were launched and they are pulling some of the strings in Syria. "At home", in Britain, the Muslims are the enemy in the way that the Irish were in the 60's, 70's and 80's The Jewish populations of France and Britain, that for years have been suffering increasing attacks from mostly right-wing elements, generally ignored by the state, are now "under threat" from Muslims; scapegoat put against scapegoat in a cynical and hypocritical move by the bourgeoisie.

Islam now equals terrorism and Muslims, whatever they wear, are being isolated, terrorised and abused on a greater scale. "The Muslim population must show their Britishness" or their "Frenchness" is a constant theme to in order to point the finger and reinforce nationalism. It's very much an attack on the whole working class.

The media slant, falling in with their state masters, is ambiguous at best, but you're either "British" or a terrorist supporter.

Caiman del Barrio

I have to say though, reading posts from people in Newcastle (?) - a city recently chosen as the site of PEGIDA UK's first ever demo (reason: "there aren't many Muslims there") - on the imminent threat of insurrectionist Islamism is rather incredible.

Yeah I had what I think was a muslim knocking on my door the other year. All gold earrings trying to sell me pegs. I called the police. Never seen anything like it.

Hideously white up here hideous.

Caiman del Barrio

Yes OK but do you provide an "equal" opposition to, say, gremlins as you would climate change. or do you measure your response and approach relative to the size of the threat? I mean, how far can we go with this logic? Should we 'equally' oppose domestic violence against men by women, as women by men, or do we equate false rape allegations resulting in conviction with unconvicted rape, or do we recognise that the two phenomena, while both extant, are on different orders of magnitude?

Depends who you're having a conversation with, if your on a board with lefties then probably your more highly aware of anti-semitism and apologists for that. Racism toward muslims is not really something you would disagree on. Its about context.

And yes we should 'equally' oppose domestic violence, whoever is affected.And maybe in some context it is worth being vocal about female perps of domestic violence. Again context, other wise consensus becomes silencing individual experiences under statistical abstractions.

Sorry Mr Jolly but I think you have a number of confused ideas here.

Perhaps one issue is the definition of "opposition", which for activo-leftist wankathon chattering classes generally means a hollow statement of an abstract position in conversation with people who probably largely agree with you (much like this thread, one might say ;) ). This is pretty much a safe, redundant exercise, which is why it's the preferred course of action for most 'leftists', alongside the ritualised spectacle of anti-fascist demonstrations (which, regrettably, very rarely challenge the racist/quasi-fascist premises and historical revisionism which prop up the existence of nation-states and government). So yes, as a hypothetical thought exercise, I do 'equally oppose' domestic violence against men and women, and indeed, bigotry against Muslims, Jews, white Buddhists and Martians.

However, at risk of repeating the paragraph you quoted, the question is one of scale: which group/community (the boundaries of which are largely defined by the racists attacking it, lest we forget) do you think is at most risk? Anti-semitic attacks are on the rise in the UK and France, and this must be a concern for Jews, but I actually think that anti-Semitism is generally taken quite seriously by both state apparata and police forces. On the other hand, Islamophobic attacks are also mushrooming and I think the protection offered by both the state and the political campaign waged against it by mainstream media are much thinner and almost absent, at times (like I say, the press almost totally ignored the wave of attacks following both the Rigby murder and the Charlie Hebdo spree). Therefore, in terms of allocation of resources, a priority should be protection of Muslims and Muslim-looking people. One simple way of doing this would be just amplifying the attacks when they happen, colouring people's rather pious denunciations of 'Islamic terrorism' by pointing to the larger phenomenon of knife attacks on mosques, street attacks on bearded Arabs, etc.

Incidentally, I received a PM from a poster on this thread making a claim - that to my mind seems highly spurious, even if he (?) did back it up with reference to sociological study - that domestic violence by women against men was much more prevalent than vice versa. I'm not at all convinced, but I suppose at least the author acknowledges the key question when deciding where to concentrate our gaze.

On the topic of muslim dress (sorry for going a bit off topic, but it has been mentioned), I think the whole issue is totally overblown.

Yes, no one should be forced to wear religious dress if they don't want to. Yes, differential clothing and modesty norms for men and women are problematic, but I can't think of a culture which is not guilty of this!

Every cultural group has modesty customs / clothing norms, most of which are complied with entirely voluntarily, because people are socialised into them, and people who have been socialised to these norms feel "naked" if they fail to follow them.

If you're from the "majority culture" in the UK, for example, (terrible term, but I'm not sure how else to put it), you also abide by modesty norms, although perhaps you don't see them because they are so prevalent. If you don't believe me, I invite you (men or women) to walk about with no top on, or (men) to wear a skirt (a very practical piece of clothing, especially in hot weather, so why not?).

The Ex-Hijabi Photo Journal is worth a look for views on the hijab and niqab from women who haven't necessarily had much choice about what they were allowed to wear.

http://exhijabifashion.tumblr.com

Again whether you think the issue is overblown surely depends on where you're standing. It isn't the state's or the EDL's business but it is important to a lot of people from a Muslim background - whether religious or not and whether or not they live in a Muslim majority country.

Yeah, you're right. I just meant that the fuss non-Muslims often make over the hijab etc. is overblown, in that it usually isn't really about helping people who actually feel oppressed by it. It's about telling people they ought to feel oppressed even if they don't. Which on the one hand, might be sort of true, in the same sense that many modesty or clothing norms of mainstream "western" culture might be oppressive even if people don't generally feel them to be so. But it's not something anyone can really claim much moral high ground on.

Caiman del Barrio

Incidentally, I received a PM from a poster on this thread making a claim - that to my mind seems highly spurious, even if he (?) did back it up with reference to sociological study - that domestic violence by women against men was much more prevalent than vice versa. I'm not at all convinced, but I suppose at least the author acknowledges the key question when deciding where to concentrate our gaze.

FYI here's the PM in full but I think if CDB really wanted to discuss this then a return PM would have been/would be better for several reasons, mainly in allowing me to avoid once again being accused of single-handedly derailing the thread - please PM if you actually do want to discuss and not just distort:

Title of PM: Charlie Hebdo #364
"Should we 'equally' oppose domestic violence against men by women, as women by men, or do we equate false rape allegations resulting in conviction with unconvicted rape, or do we recognise that the two phenomena, while both extant, are on different orders of magnitude?"

I'm assuming you mean rape of women by men. There are multiple sources which flatly contradict you on this and on domestic violence.. For example there's "References Examining Assaults by Women on their Spouces or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography (last updated: June 2012)," compiled by Martin S. Fiebert, formerly professor of psychology at California State University and author of fifty-five peer-reviewed scientific papers (in other words a person who relies rather geekily on careful analysis of data and not just anecdotal evidence from which to draw conclusions).

This document begins as follows: "SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600." It's online: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm the bibliographic references are here http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assaultsbib.html

I mention it in passing as an example of evidence which utterly undermines your belief but of course there is other analysis which backs up what you say, and I've messaged you in order to avoid going into derailing data wars but I'd honestly like to know how you came to hold this viewpoint.

i haven't looked at that vary closely, but i notice that some of those references show the opposite to what is claimed, there are also lots that are based on self reporting, and some are apparently from books.
also it appears to be nothing but a list of references, without the thing there a references for?

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the Sacred Document of the Mens Rights Movement was posted up. I imagine in your quest for unbiased, empirical truth you have individually analyzed all those studies and come up with exactly the same conclusions as Fiebert because people have done just that and arrived at entirely different conclusions to Fiebert. I have to admit I haven't the time, inclination to do just that. It must be my illogical female brain which makes me inclined to rather pay more attention to overwhelming evidence of a mere anecdotal variety. It must be all that pesky estrogen.
In case anyone was unaware, Martin S Fiebert is the tame psychologist called upon by A Voice For Men, pet project of the Alpha Dog of MRAs, Paul Elam. Just for shits and giggles I'll post up some of the articles currently on AVFM, an organisation that Fiebert represents -
Why women lie about rape -
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/13-women-who-lied-about-being-raped-and-why-they-did-it/
Protecting Bill Cosby from harrassment -
http://www.avoiceformen.com/allnews/avfm-to-attend-cosby-show-document-harrassment/
Misandry and abuse of female privilege in the film Labyrinth -
http://www.avoiceformen.com/art-entertainment-culture/labyrinth-the-goblin-king-and-the-patriarchal-truth/
But by all means do take AVFM as a reputable source. Incidentally, it is an organisation which has not contributed a single cent towards actually helping men who have been abused or subject to domestic violence. It sure does hate women though.

Nobody refutes that men are subject to violence and abuse, including men I have known. However, no-one outside the toxic stew of the MRAs maintains that the scale is in anyway equivalent to the violence experienced by women and that includes various of the studies cited by Fiebert to support his conclusions. In a previous post I asked you to what ends ( or something to that effect, can't be bothered to look back) you wanted to analyze stats and you replied something to the effect of being unbiased. Then do so. Go through the raw data of each and every one of these studies and then come up with conclusions, if you don't have anything better to do.
Here are some sources you might want to start with
http://www.vawnet.org/assoc_files_vawnet/gendersymmetry.pdf
http://manboobz.blogspot.ca/p/not-so-great-debate-on-domestic.html

And while we are on statistics, there's that one about two women being killed every week by their male partner or ex-partner. Try as I might, I just can't find an equivalent one about all the dead men.

Big up to Fleur for somehow having the patience to respond in detail to the intellectual equivalent of insisting that it's really not at all clear based based on the objective statistical data that bosses abusing workers is any more common than workers abusing bosses. Just gross "scientific" misogyny, clearly we can't take for granted the reality of experiences talked about by loads and loads of women and that really should be blatantly apparent to anyone else.

If the science is faulty it can be critiqued in scientific terms, Tyrion. It looks from Fleur's post like this may very well be the case - although I can't be bothered to go through it myself. To insinuate that even investigating or attempting to collect data on male victims of domestic violence is misogynistic is not helpful, in my view.

On killings by ex-partners, a UK office for national statistics report in 2014 reports that:

On average about seven women and two men are killed by their current or former partner every month in England and Wales.

(That's a quote from a BBC article referring to the report, not the report itself.)

Concerning the sex of the killers, the ONS report says:

All but one of the female partner/ex-partner homicide victims were killed by a male suspect, whereas among men, around a third of partner/ex-partner homicide were killed by a male suspect. However, the category of partner/ex partner homicide includes homicides committed by the victim’s lover’s spouse or emotional rival (see definition above) and this was the case in the majority (14 out of 19) of these instances. Among other adult homicides, 96% of male and 87% of female victims aged 16 or over were killed by a male suspect.

So this report would seem to back up the case that, while some men are killed by female partners, fatal violence by male partners against female partners is dramatically more common.

(The report does not, as far as I can see, try to establish how often fatal violence by female partners can be categorised as self-defence or a response to prior domestic violence by the male partner. I suppose this would be pretty difficult to establish, although it would be useful. My guess would be that quite a few, although not all, of the killings of men by female partners fall into this category.)

I've only skim read the report, so I may have missed some things. Here are the links:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22610534

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2012-13/rpt---chapter-2---homicide.html?format=print

autogestión

If the science is faulty it can be critiqued in scientific terms, Tyrion. It looks from Fleur's post like this may very well be the case - although I can't be bothered to go through it myself. To insinuate that even investigating or attempting to collect data on male victims of domestic violence is misogynistic is not helpful, in my view.

Paul Elam/MRAs aren't 'science' though, they're basically a hate group. It's like citing The Gates of Vienna to prove Muslims are taking over Europe, which thankfully nobody's done (yet?).

Here's the Southern Poverty Law Centre debunking MRA shite with academic references: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women

And here's a major women's refuge charity ('for women and children') also supporting men, something MRAs don't find much time to do in between defending rapists and attacking victims of violence as liars: http://www.refuge.org.uk/get-help-now/help-for-men/men-are-abused-too/

And I've no idea what this has to do with Charlie Hebdo apart from an apparent correlation between thinking Muslims are breaking down the gates of civilisation and feminists are undermining it from with in. Maybe someone should do a study.

Paul Elam/MRAs aren't 'science' though, they're basically a hate group. It's like citing The Gates of Vienna to prove Muslims are taking over Europe, which thankfully nobody's done (yet?).

The studies aren't generally carried out by MRAs - they are legitimate scientific studies that are cherry picked by MRAs because they think they support their viewpoint.

In any case, by "science" I don't mean "good science", I mean studies which make scientific claims and purport to use scientific methods. One method of "scientific critique" might be to establish some evidence of researcher bias, or lack of attempt to counter the possibility of researcher bias. Other criticisms of the methodology of the research would also count as scientific critique. So in a sense, arguing that a particular piece of research "isn't science" (or at least, isn't "good science") can, depending on the substance of the argument, be precisely the scientific critique I was calling for.

Saying, "the scientist is a misogynist merely because they reach what I consider to be the wrong conclusions - or even just because they research questions I don't think are important" generally isn't.

And while I'm sure MRAs are very keen to collate studies which support their ideology (and to ignore the ones which counter it), I don't think merely seeking reliable data on female-to-male partner violence makes you an MRA.

Here's the Southern Poverty Law Centre debunking MRA shite with academic references: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women

Great! So we have "bad science" being shown to be "bad science" using scientific critique. This is precisely what I was calling for / defending.

autogestión

By "science" I don't mean "good science", I mean studies which make scientific claims and purport to use scientific methods.

Fair enough. I'm wary of validating the wedge strategy often deployed to establish spurious positions as part of a 'scientific debate' though. I generally don't think MRA (or creationist) arguments merit much more than contempt. I'll make an exception on libcom as I'll assume people have just stumbled across a dodgy link rather than being hardcore misogynist revanchist activists, but usually these positions aren't determined by evidence, but supposed facts are deployed to support prior affective commitments ('reason is the slave of passions' and all that).

Trying to establish the number of male victims of domestic violence doesn't make you an MRA. Undoubtedly there are some such victims. It would be useful to know how many.

The data thus collected may or may not support the MRA viewpoint - in my view, it tends not to.

Joseph Kay

And I've no idea what this has to do with Charlie Hebdo apart from an apparent correlation between thinking Muslims are breaking down the gates of civilisation and feminists are undermining it from with in. Maybe someone should do a study.

I dont either but you seem to have brought it into the conversation and factvalue ran with it.

Mr. Jolly

I dont either but you seem to have brought it into the conversation and factvalue ran with it.

I thought it was about intersectional jihad ruining working man's anarchism for men who work?

No thats in your head.

Mr. Jolly

No thats in your head.

So when Serge claimed "intersectional cack" supports islamic terrorism, you cheered him on, and Serge insisted this wasn't a derail, that was all in my head? Thank fuck for that, I was starting to think this sincere concern for emancipating muslim women might be a flag of convenience or something.

So when Serge claimed "intersectional cack" supports islamic terrorism, you cheered him on, and Serge insisted this wasn't a derail, that was all in my head? Thank fuck for that, I was starting to think this sincere concern for emancipating muslim women might be a flag of convenience or something.

Just an observant point that intersectional politics should be obviously about the complexities of power, seems often lacking somewhat when applied by its laity. Not criticism of women no criticism of feminism as a whole, no mention of either. But go ahead keep throwing the crap you know it sticks...

FYI this would be more persuasive if you weren't having a pop at me for criticising MRAs.

Joseph Kay

FYI this would be more persuasive if you weren't having a pop at me for criticising MRAs.

Keep throwing the crap....

Thanks Fleur I'll take a look at those links. Like everyone else, I see the world through the lens of my own experiences, and since I'm not in contact with anyone in 'the movement' at present - hence the nerdy 'information' approach to enlightenment - although it's a pain for yourself and others with more experience and knowledge of these matters, I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Comrades, imo anything else on this really would be better as PM/separate thread so as not to further the derail.

Yeah please make a separate thread for Factvalue and Mr Jolly's...um...yeah. I'm not a psychiatrist so I'm unable to draw any conclusions about the motivations of two men who turn a discussion about a state-sponsored campaign against European Muslims into discussion of how men are the real victims of women. Perhaps a meta-meta-thread can be made to figure out just what the fuck is wrong with them.

Caiman del Barrio

Mr Jolly's...um...yeah.

Caiman del Barrio

Muslims into discussion of how men are the real victims of women..

Lol Where the fuck did I say that? You joseph, and factvalue kept bringing it up. :/

Mr Jolly wrote

Just an observant point that intersectional politics should be obviously about the complexities of power, seems often lacking somewhat when applied by its laity.

Really, can you get any more patronizing? Quite clearly those of us who are not ordained priests of theory are using the word we use to explain our praxis all wrong.

Is practitioner better? I can swap it for that.

To be honest were arguing over a cigarette papers worth of difference here. Is it worth the derail, bunfight and ad hominem?

Then think about whether you should post or not Mr. Jolly.

factvalue

I see the world through the lens of my own experiences

lol.

Your experiences don't mean anything because they're not in a pie chart.

autogestión

If the science is faulty it can be critiqued in scientific terms, Tyrion. It looks from Fleur's post like this may very well be the case - although I can't be bothered to go through it myself. To insinuate that even investigating or attempting to collect data on male victims of domestic violence is misogynistic is not helpful, in my view.

I don't see anything wrong with collecting data on male victims of domestic violence. What I do object to is what's actually gone on in this thread, which is men responding to women who mentioned an experience with patriarchy that many, many women talk about (men dominating political discussions) with pretty thinly veiled undermining of the reality of these experiences in the guise of objective, rational, scientific inquiry. If you really take seriously the implications of certain posters in this thread, the logical endpoint is that women are generally lying about these things and misogyny is greatly exaggerated--whereas misandry is apparently quite a danger! Pretty vile stuff with awful practical implications and I can't imagine it makes libcom a more comfortable environment for anyone worth having here.

commieprincess

factvalue

I see the world through the lens of my own experiences

lol.

Your experiences don't mean anything because they're not in a pie chart.

An eloquent if slightly monomaniacal paraphrase but from the links Fleur posted I think a comment by Patricia Tjaden, one of the authors of ‘Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey,’ about the use of tools like the Conflict Tactics Scale, sums all this up better for me:

'I know this debate over whether men and women are equally likely to perpetrate violence against their intimate partners is very confusing and I have spent a good part of my career attempting to convince fellow researchers and the federal government that we need to spend time and money figuring out why different studies (i.e. different methodological approaches) have yielded such disparate findings. This would be far more fruitful than pointing fingers at each other and calling each other names.'

Back to Charlie Hebdo and its fallout:

I appreciate Caiman's reports from France, the description of social conditions there and the current dangerous atmosphere. But I think he and others are missing some of the dimensions to the attack on CH and the kosher supermarket.

The killers of the CH staff were not anti-racists, and the murders were intended for an international audience. I think they would have been satisfied with everything that's followed: the displays of national unity and the insistence that everyone declares allegiance, and also the attacks on Muslims. It all serves to strengthen the narrative that the west is at war with Islam and Muslims.

In Europe, one of the intentions is to provoke a backlash against Muslims (and people from Muslim majority migrant communities that may not define themselves as Muslim) as well as increased state surveillance and repression, further alienating Muslim youth and reinforcing the notion that Islam is not compatible with the West, an idea held by both the nationalist right and the Islamic right.

Internationally, it's about stoking up the feelings of victimisation by 'the west'. Muslim majority communities in France are largely poor and powerless so Islamic Right/ jihadi activity there comes out of this dynamic. However, on a global scale this is not the picture. Islam and Muslims are not under threat in Indonesia, Sudan, Niger, Yemen, Pakistan or many other countries where protests happened. It's worth reading about the protests and who organises them, for example here http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/pakistan-police-clash-anti-charlie-hebdo-protesters they don't happen spontaneously, they are organised by reactionary groups who need the oxygen of continued grievance against the west.

Islamic movements are powerful. In Pakistan, which continues to see violent Charlie Hebdo protests, Islam is not under threat, but everyone who isn't the right kind of Muslim, is.

And no, diaspora communities 'here' don't exist independently of their countries of origin or of international Islamic currents.

Whether or not the killers actually cared about the blasphemy aspect, this is once again reinforced on a global scale. Already blasphemy and apostasy codes, that demarcate who is human and who can be slaughtered, are increasingly used by the powerful against the weak in many places.

Here, fundamentalist and religious right groups work together promote religious privilege and blasphemy laws and codes. Alliances between different fundamentalisms over issues of 'offence,' (as well as things like reproductive rights) often trumps mutual suspicion between faith groups. Naturally Islamists are trying to seize the moment in various ways just as the nationalist far right are (see yesterday's March in central London).

It's not clear yet whether the CH attacks will result in a retreat of the forces arguing for protection of religious privilege here or internationally. But in these matters even losing a battle can be a win for the fundamentalists, since it reinforces the victim narrative and so-on.

Defending people from racist attacks and challenging racism wherever we see it doesn't mean we give up our critical faculties and politics in the face of power grabs by fundamentalists from any religion. As nearly everyone has agreed, 'Islamic terrorism' is kind of a red herring. We're talking here about right wing movements, and what they do to our hopes of any kind of emancipatory project.

My definitions
Islamist- movements that want to impose any version of Islam as law
Religious fundamentalism - modern transnational political movements of the right that use the cover of religion to gain authority and power

Thanks Rachel for the considered and informative post. I find a couple of assumptions within problematic however:

I don't think that Islamist movements in countries such as Yemen and Pakistan can be seen in isolation from international geopolitics and the huge, deliberate damage to infrastructure and social structures wrought by the US and Allies in the post-9/11 era. While these movements' leaders are undoubtedly despicable opportunists, they sit on top of thousands to millions of people, many of whom could well be influenced by recent socio-economic/ecological shifts (Yemen, for example, has a water crisis) or indeed personal revenge agendas following the deaths of family members.

I'm not sure how transferable concepts such as 'right wing' are onto the socio-political spectrum across the developing world (once again, this is a term borne out of - yep - the French Revolution ;) ). I think there's a similar issue with denouncing the likes of Islamic State, Nahrendra Modi, and the BJP in Bangladesh as 'fascist': I would call these terms Eurocentric, since they wish to impose a European context and history on regions which don't have those experiences or contexts. Of course, many political movements are directly influenced by European currents, but others aren't, and in fact, feed off of the development of an identity distinct from arrogant Westerners. If we are to defeat these movements - or better said, help people in those areas defeat them - then it's time for us to properly understand them.

Caiman del Barrio

BJP in Bangladesh as 'fascist': I would call these terms Eurocentric

Erm BJP in bangladesh is in no way shape or form an Islamist party, they are secular nationailists iirc.

As for Modi, his lineage RSS fundie Hinduism, draws heavily from good old blood and soil european race theory.

(ignore)

Hi Caiman
on your first paragraph - no disagreement.

Those movements certainly can not be understood in isolation from colonialism, recent wars, and all the rest. What I resist is the the idea that they aren't worth consideration-that everything is only about 'the west' and 'Muslims' can only be victims (to me that's the real eurocentrism). The fact is that there is more than one side to oppose in most of these conflicts.

Re 'right-wing' I agree, these terms may not be the best. When I first heard the term 'Islamic Right' several years ago I googled it and came to this article by Chetan Bhatt which I still think is excellent http://www.siawi.org/article817.html
It's also used by a whole load of other people (mostly from South Asia or MENA) who I have learned from, many of whom I mentioned in my first comment no.way down the thread.

But it's not a popular term and it's not the right fit for many people. UK groups that I would consider 'Islamic Right' accuse their opponents of being rightwing all the time, so maybe it's becoming meaningless.

Karima Bennoune prefers Muslim Fundamentalism because it connects with other fundamentalisms from the other world religions. The point is that these movements are primarily political, not spiritual. Most people can understand this if you think of the American Christian Right, Hindutva, religious Zionism (it has a secular element too), the new Buddhist nationalist movements in Sri Lanka and Burma, etc.

I don't think 'fundamentalism' is adequate to describe jihadism though. I think we need more analysis of the movements and I'd be happy to change my terms. But whatever it is, it's certainly modern, and as you say, not separable from international geopolitics.

I don't think 'fundamentalism' is adequate to describe jihadism though. I think we need more analysis of the movements and I'd be happy to change my terms.

Yes, it's possible to be 'fundamentalist' in religious terms and be quietist politically. It doesn't have to equate to jihadism. It's a careless use of terms which I think I've also slipped into earlier in the thread.

Yeah, fundamentalist doesn't really cut it. In some ways, if you were a fundamentalist Christian, it may not be such a bad thing. Love thy neighbour like yourself; I wish more Christians were fundamentalists on that point.

But when it comes to the bat shit crazy versions of political Islam, there are lots of terms for them. Jihadi, takfiri, wahhabi and so on. Why not just use those?

Show me a fundamentalist Christian who isn't bat shit crazy.

Mr Jolly i didn't call BJP Islamist, but I'm not sure I meant them either and I'm swimming out of my depth if we get involved in discussions of Bangladeshi politics so I'm gonna quietly drop that example.

Good posts by Rachel and others. I also have issues with the term 'fundamentalist' as it would seem to imply that that the violent misanthropes are enacting the fundamental praxis of Islam, when the general consensus among Muslims is that they're hijacking the theological teachings to their own end. I've never read the Qu'ran or attended prayers in a mosque, but nowhere in my understanding of Islam does it call on Muslims to murder other Muslims.

Which reminds me: someone on another thread complained about semantic discussions. I see the point being made about how irritating pedantry can be, but when there is a coordinated attack on a group of people, I think it's important to measure our words and understand their origins.

"Jihad" for example has been used to refer to struggles in general, including the struggle to be a better Muslim, to live from one day to the next, etc, etc, so I'm not sure about the word "jihadist" to refer to Al Qa'eda, IS, Boko Haram, etc. This mistranslation has been repeatedly drawn out in the Syrian civil war, with wide-eyed Western journalists seeking to arbitrarily divide the rebels between 'goodies' and 'baddies' on the grounds of whether they were mujahedeen (by which they mean IS/AQ-esque extremists), when in fact, this was a common term used by all rebels to refer to their struggle.

Another example is the association made between people shouting "allahu akbar" and violent attacks on civilians. Apparently one passer by filmed the CH attacks while muttering "allahu akbar", leading to something of a manhunt since it was assumed he was involved. I'm told that actually "allahu akbar" is a call for protection when one feels fear, so it seemed more likely that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was scared.

Like I say, i don't speak Arab and I'm not at all Muslim. All of this has been gleaned via conversations and anecdotes and a sense that we're being consistently lied to about Muslims, Islam and Islamism.

All these terms are argued over all the time. That's why I tried to define two terms in 406 to help clarify the comment I made at 406.

I definitely don't use fundamentalist in the sense that Khawaga and Caiman do above, to mean based on the 'fundmentals' of a religion.

On Khawagas second pt I think you're probably right

Coming back to Rachel

Rachel

The point is that these movements are primarily political, not spiritual. Most people can understand this if you think of the American Christian Right, Hindutva, religious Zionism (it has a secular element too), the new Buddhist nationalist movements in Sri Lanka and Burma, etc.

Yes, I agree 100%. This article makes the same point about Islamic State: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/no-piers-morgan-how-destroy-islamic-state-1630388804

So thin is IS’s veneer of religious motivation that French journalist Didier François, who was held hostage by IS for 10 months before his eventual release, revealed that his captors were so uninterested in religion they didn’t even have copies of the Qur’an, and never engaged in religious discussions.

“There was never really discussion about texts or – it was not a religious discussion,” François told CNN. “It was a political discussion. It was more hammering what they were believing than teaching us about the Quran. Because it has nothing to do with the Quran. They didn’t even have the Quran; they didn’t want even to give us a Quran.”

One extremist Saudi preacher, Sheikh Mani’i al-Mani’i, who last year declared on Twitter that he had joined the “land of jihad” and pledged allegiance to IS, ended up fleeing to the Saudi embassy in Turkey. IS, he told Saudi TV, promotes a religion which “is not the Islam I know.” IS may parade and enforce a self-styled system of “Shariah law”, but its roots in Islamic texts are mostly a matter of caricature: black burkas, brutal stoning and beheadings, rigid regulation of prayer, excommunication of anyone who rejects its legitimacy as an infidel deserving summary execution, and so on.

Young aspiring IS jihadist supporters and recruitees are rarely motivated by any detailed exegesis of religious texts, Foreign Policy reports, as opposed to “anger and humiliations big and small”, all manner of political grievances, and a life of hopelessness mired in unemployment and drug addiction.

Same could be said for Hindutva, Savarkar the founder was an atheist. But saw the power of reinterpreting (read using and abusing) the vedas, to be put to use in a masculine racial nationalism, trying to align the colonial struggle with the romantic vision of heimat.

Rachel

All these terms are argued over all the time. That's why I tried to define two terms in 406 to help clarify the comment I made at 405

I definitely don't use fundamentalist in the sense that Khawaga and Caiman do above, to mean based on the 'fundmentals' of a religion.

On Khawagas second pt I think you're probably right

Sorry didn't mean to do that, thought it would just edit my previous post !

Caiman del Barrio

I think it's important to measure our words and understand their origins.
"Jihad" for example has been used to refer to struggles in general, including the struggle to be a better Muslim, to live from one day to the next, etc, etc, so I'm not sure about the word "jihadist" to refer to Al Qa'eda, IS, Boko Haram, etc.

Just for information this article by the historian Patricia Crone is interesting on the history of the idea of jihad.

https://www.hs.ias.edu/sites/hs.ias.edu/files/Crone_Articles/Crone_Jihad_idea_and_history.pdf

'Jihad' can be used in a wider sense but I think this is a secondary use.

Interesting piece in parts by Mark Ames, looking at vertical and horizontal censorship, Charlie Hebdo and social media response.

"As Dorenko explained it, Kremlin censorship under Putin is “vertical”—top-down censorship that is brutal and frightening when you’re targeted; but also flawed and inefficient as censorship strategies go, because the top-down vertical approach is too narrow, too concentrated under one tyrannical locus at the top.

This was contrasted to our “horizontal” censorship in the West: rather than coming from a tyrannical top-down force, our censorship is carried out horizontally, between colleagues and peers and “society”; through public pressure and peer pressure; through morality-policing; and from within oneself, one’s fears for one’s career, and fears one can’t necessarily articulate, fears that feel natural rather than imposed upon.

Under vertical censorship, you know exactly who you fear, and therefore, who and what to avoid or sneak around and oppose. But horizontal censorship feels like it comes from everyone and anyone, depriving the censored of martyrdom status. Which makes our “horizontal” censorship in many ways more effective and powerful than the cruder Kremlin “vertical” approach to censorship—according to Dorenko’s theory."

"The Charlie Hebdo massacre provided yet another grim example of how social media horizontalism imposes conformism and censorship on the very same groups who consider themselves outside the old mainstream consensus.

Take for example this warp-speed way that the most popular of Anonymous Twitter accounts, @YourAnonNews — the very symbol of contemporary radical activism — fell into line with the Twitter Left’s verdict on the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Actually, in a few tweets you see the conformism unfold in warp-speed time-lapse, almost comically, going from sensible outrage over a “senseless massacre”, …to bandwagon conformist hashtaggers"

"Fact is, Swift today would be hounded off Twitter for “promoting child cannibalism as a solution to Irish poverty”; demagogic satire-shamers would trash Swift for “punching down, not up”—because as every social media Stalinist will tell you, “satire should punch up, not down.” And it’s all effected without the crude, violent methods used by the Kremlin censors—we do it to ourselves, thanks to our decentralized new utopia."

http://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-satire/

so this is one way blasphemy codes are now imposed.

Rachel

so this is one way blasphemy codes are now imposed.

As the article says the hebdo murders was a very much top down censorship by powerfull forces. As you said it wasn't payback for racism orchestrated by the dispossessed. Two points that didint seem to mean much in the reaction by the radical left, it was terrible, but CH were shits!

I do think there is a touch of hyperbole in the authors panoptic vision. But the radical left in my mind, well online anyway, is a little censorious.

Edit to answer your question, I guess the confusion, the genuine fear of islamophobic attacks, play into the imposition of such codes.

Mr. Jolly

Interesting piece in parts by Mark Ames, looking at vertical and horizontal censorship, Charlie Hebdo and social media response.

"wah stop censoring people by pointing out racism, you should be like the free thinkers who bravely said #JeSuisCharlie and shared racist cartoons, so we would all know killing cartoonist is bad, its controlling what people can say if you don't join in with the mindless glorification of a bunch of racist cartoonists you never heard off, your worse than the kgb"

http://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-satire/

Hello guys I'm really not sure how to respond to posts about the attack which include highly questionable terms like "satire-shaming" and "top down censorship" without any real justification or evidence. If you think that young migrant excon sociopaths who executed the CH staff have more 'power' in French society than chattering class 'intellectuals' crudely participating in a state-sponsored demonisation of a (vaguely definied) ethnic group for geopolitical ends, then i think that offers an insight into your own views on said campaign, unfortunately.

Caiman, I think Mr Jolly's post (which I didn't take that seriously) was talking about what happened in the weeks after the attacks, particularly in Britain. I was pretty surprised to see that virtually the only debate I saw on the left, all over Facebook for example, was about whether or not CH was racist - nothing else about the other dimensions that have been mentioned in various posts on the head. Yes, I think this served to silence some voices worth listening to, even if the intention was to defend a vulnerable minority.

radicalgraffiti - luckily we have other options than 'Je Suis Charlie' or taking a leftist approach that says the enemy of my enemy must be my friend. Read the interesting and nuanced comments by Shhi on this thread to see an alternative.

Mr. Jolly

This was contrasted to our “horizontal” censorship in the West: rather than coming from a tyrannical top-down force, our censorship is carried out horizontally, between colleagues and peers and “society”; through public pressure and peer pressure; through morality-policing; and from within oneself, one’s fears for one’s career, and fears one can’t necessarily articulate, fears that feel natural rather than imposed upon.

Ooh, those evil horizontalists. So oppressing us professional opinion-formers, with, like, their lack of vertical power, and their opinions on things...

Apologies for derail, but this is an utter load of shit. "fears for one's career" - OK, some well-fed professional column-writers and media folk have recently lost their jobs due to social media outcry.

But show me one instance where that outcry wasn't about blatant racism or misogyny? Where is this threat of mob injustice that professional hacks are whining about?

Seriously, are we back to endlessly recycling Daily Hate Mail stories about "political correctness gone mad?".

Rachel

Caiman, I think Mr Jolly's post (which I didn't take that seriously) was talking about what happened in the weeks after the attacks, particularly in Britain. I was pretty surprised to see that virtually the only debate I saw on the left, all over Facebook for example, was about whether or not CH was racist - nothing else about the other dimensions that have been mentioned in various posts on the head. Yes, I think this served to silence some voices worth listening to, even if the intention was to defend a vulnerable minority.

Maybe we belong to different 'lefts' then (I for myself cannot stand the British left, so I'm not sure why we should be overly concerned about horseshite they churn out), since what I saw was a plethora of idiots adopting the #jesuis banner and re-publishing the idiotic cartoons ad infinitum 'as a point of principle'. 3,7 million people joined the demos in France, including the majority of the 'left' (although I see Movement Communiste wrote an eye-wateringly tedious and impenetrable leaflet to litter the route with). Extremely few people talked about the Islamophobic revenge attacks, and instead preferred to wring their hands about how those naughty brown people were ruining their fun (*ahem* sorry, I meant to say European freedom of speech).

If you go back through the earlier posts in this thread, maybe you'll see what I mean.

WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE JOURNALISTS?

Caiman del Barrio

Hello guys I'm really not sure how to respond to posts about the attack which include highly questionable terms like "satire-shaming" and "top down censorship" without any real justification or evidence. If you think that young migrant excon sociopaths who executed the CH staff have more 'power' in French society than chattering class 'intellectuals' crudely participating in a state-sponsored demonisation of a (vaguely defined) ethnic group for geopolitical ends, then i think that offers an insight into your own views on said campaign, unfortunately.

1. What I meant, they weren't lone wolf attacks. They were it seems part of wider 'jihadist' networks, well funded extremely powerful networks. Not so powerful in reach in the west, but clearly powerful in other parts of the world.

2. Were CH really 'participating in a state-sponsored demonisation of a ethnic group for geopolitical ends'? Like 9/11 the murders have obviously serve various states and powerful actors, but to suggest that CH were some sort of cheerleaders for french foreign policy, really? What evidence is there for that?

Mr Jolly, keep up, this was discussed on page 6: https://libcom.org/forums/news/charlie-hebdo-other-attacks-paris-08012015?page=5#comment-550897

Caiman del Barrio

Mr Jolly, keep up, this was discussed on page 6: https://libcom.org/forums/news/charlie-hebdo-other-attacks-paris-08012015?page=5#comment-550897

How does that statement by lefty liberal activists many from the middle east and south asia, communists and authors cheerlead french foreign policy? what geo-political ends are are you talking about that are implicit in that statement?

Rachel

radicalgraffiti - luckily we have other options than 'Je Suis Charlie' or taking a leftist approach that says the enemy of my enemy must be my friend. Read the interesting and nuanced comments by Shhi on this thread to see an alternative.

I have not seen anyone take a approach of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" so i'm not sure what you are talking about here

Mr. Jolly

Caiman del Barrio

Mr Jolly, keep up, this was discussed on page 6: https://libcom.org/forums/news/charlie-hebdo-other-attacks-paris-08012015?page=5#comment-550897

How does that statement by lefty liberal activists many from the middle east and south asia, communists and authors cheerlead french foreign policy? what geo-political ends are are you talking about that are implicit in that statement?

Manifeste des douze was originally published by Charlie Hebdo: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifeste_des_douze

I feel like I said this approx one month ago and 6-7 pages back: the notion that "Islamism" is the greatest threat to world peace right now is natural territory for the far right (EDL, PEGIDA, etc) but has also been adopted by the 'pro-US' ruling class post-9/11 to justify their military adventures.

It is of course completely false, unless you are unfortunate enough to live in one of possibly 6-7 conflict zones across the world (in which case, you are probably Muslim yourself). It is definitely false for white Europeans such as Charlie Hebdo 'journalists'. Perhaps certain members of specific migrant communities across western Europe will feel social pressure as a result of conservative 'Muslim' norms, but then, that equally applies to Orthodox Jews (FYI, there are gender-segregated buses in upstate New York) and even some Christian sects (Mormons).

I think that there's been some very interesting points and questions raised in the discussion above particularly in the exchanges between Caiman and Rachel.

Big subject religion - massive - but I think that revolutionaries should be tolerant of the beliefs of the vast majority of people who have them. Ultimately though religion is not compatible with a communist society, though that's a long way off.

Absolutely inherent to ruling class values across the globe is racism. In Britain in the recent past it's been the Irish scapegoats, then the West Indians and now it's the Muslims. Racism is a perfectly natural product of capitalism.

How to describe today's fanatics that use or misuse a religious ideology? I see the jihadi's of Isis and other such groups as part and parcel of the same phenomena as "rebels", "separatists", nationalists, narco-states (in 5 years at the beginning of the 80's hundreds and thousands of poople were killed in Guatemala alone, and Mexico today says it all) along with mafias and a gangsterism and corruption that permeates the highest levels of the democratic states. The rise of extreme and irrational religious organisations, along with the examples above, is an expression of the breakdown of capitalist ideology that stems from the impasse and breakdown that the capitalist economy is suffering and will continue to suffer.

One of the positive things about the protests and demonstrations around the world a few years ago was how quickly people with different religious beliefs came together to protest against the state side by side. The same was true for men and women in those same demonstrations where previously they'd been segregated under the system. The wars and reaction unleashed in some of the key areas of those protests are almost like a punishment for daring to rise up and protest. But it is imperialism that fills the vacuum with its own varied agendas.

The rise of jihadism comes not only from the breakdown of capitalism but there's also human agencies, nationalist and imperialist, behind it. It's no secret that the CIA, MI6 and the Pakistani ISI were behind the rise of the Taleban, so while we know something about the involvement of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE in the rise of Isis, we can also wonder about any other elements involved. We also know something about the role of Russia and Iran in the war in Syria.

The bourgeoisie are adept at using race, religion and ethnicity, manipulating, maneuvering, arming and directing them for their own imperialist needs. The examples over the last decades are endless. But just to give one and it's capitalism newest nation: South Sudan. I don't have the details to hand but here, in the first months of the creation of this "new nation", two ethnicities who have lived peacefully alongside one another for generations are now at each others' throats - one side backed by the Americans, the other by the Chinese.

edit deleted for now.......

.

But show me one instance where that outcry wasn't about blatant racism or misogyny? Where is this threat of mob injustice that professional hacks are whining about?

What about Brendan Eich being forced to step down as CEO of Mozilla because at some point he gave $1000 to an organisation that campaigned against gay marriage laws?

I don't agree with his position, I lived for half my childhood in with my mum and her female partner, but I don't think he should have lost his job for having a political view that I disagree with. Especially when no one claims that he mistreated or discriminated against gay employees in Mozilla.

Joseph Kay

So when Serge claimed "intersectional cack" supports islamic terrorism

Only just spotted this. I'm surpised at you, Joseph K. Not normally like you to make shit up because, while I may indeed refer to the "intersectional cack" of some who may be somewhat accepting of islamism or aspects of conservative islam, I'm fucked if I can find where I said such cack was in support of "islamic terrorism" - incidentally, that's not a term I'd use. Anyroad, this is probably another derail ;)

My apologies, you said "anglo-american left is infected with the virus of identity politics, intersectional cack and privilege political guff which causes them to view islamism as something to be supported or given the status of pet ideology", in a thread about some islamist attacks, so I took it to refer to that topic, especially when you insisted it was on-topic. Anyway, the thread's moved on somewhat.

Joseph, when you start the words "my apologies" and then finish up with reasons why you think you have nothing to apologise for, it's really not big or clever.

Well, it's not that big or clever to randomly claim your comrades are (pro-) islamist. I'm glad to learn the anarchist feminist infection only supports unarmed islamists though.

Joseph Kay

Well, it's not that big or clever to randomly claim your comrades are (pro-) islamist. I'm glad to learn the anarchist feminist infection only supports unarmed islamists though.

Ouch. Joseph, you're beginning to sound like a bit of a smacked arse now. Please stop trying to be a clever clogs all the time.

When I said "the anglo-american left is infected with the virus of identity politics, intersectional cack and privilege political guff which causes them to view islamism as something to be supported or given the status of pet ideology," don't you see any resonance with that in the UK or US left? As for your implication that my criticisms of intersectionality are some kind of jab at anarchist feminism (which has been around far far longer than the current "new kids on the block" of privilege theory and intersectionality), it shows you up as something of a snide, which is a pity really.

Conflating anarchist feminism with privilege theory and intersectionality is as bad as conflating muslims or non-muslims with a "muslim heritage" with islamism and conservative aspects of islam.

serge

Conflating anarchist feminism with privilege theory and intersectionality is as bad as conflating muslims or non-muslims with a "muslim heritage" with islamism and conservative aspects of islam

Agreed - and sad that this needs pointing out. It's amusing in the history of this forum how the previously most macho/laddish posters - based around admins & pals - have now often gone into a simplistic strident pro-feminist mode that leads to comments like that above. Is this "infection" and/or affectation? :) It's almost like the lads are playing to the feminist gallery to show how reformed they've become. Also worth noting that Serge's comments were in the context of defence of a secular leftist woman, Namazie, and her critique of “the pro-islamist left’.

Pretty certain this thread is dead in every way.

Serge Forward

implication that my criticisms of intersectionality are some kind of jab at anarchist feminism

Ok, so we're not talking about anarchists, despite you replying directly to a lament about anarchists...

Fwiw anarchist feminists did organise a big conference a while back which was explicitly "to explore the intersections between oppressions" (amongst other things). The programme included a two-hour session on the middle east. I haven't seen a write-up of that session, but the anti-fascist one involved an analysis of organising both against the Islam-bashing politics of the EDL and opposing bigotry and abuse within (for want of a better word) 'the muslim community' (link).

Berkshire Antifascists

There is something very degrading in somebody of a religious faith suffering silent cultural abuses and being pushed further into the arms of abusers, note abusers and not Muslims, because the mosque that they pray in is having pigs heads thrown at it and the hostility towards them every day is tangible. The struggle for equality must transcend to equality for all, it must seek to dismantle the systems we exist in which only serve to oppress and benefit the few. To use one cause, one issue, whether it is anti-racism or otherwise, and blindly disacknowledge the wider contexts of society will only fragment the movement where fascism will then prevail.

Which seems a long way from the kind of pro-islamist cultural relativism attributed to the intersectional virus.

Thinking of leftists who could plausibly be described as pro islamist, they seem to be some what anti intersecionalist eg swp

Red Marriott

Also worth noting that Serge's comments were in the context of defence of a secular leftist woman, Namazie, and her critique of “the pro-islamist left’.

Namazie's clearly off-message and doesn't easily fit the lefty "pet muslim" stereotype. How very dare she :x

Mark.

I don't think 'fundamentalism' is adequate to describe jihadism though. I think we need more analysis of the movements and I'd be happy to change my terms.

Yes, it's possible to be 'fundamentalist' in religious terms and be quietist politically. It doesn't have to equate to jihadism. It's a careless use of terms which I think I've also slipped into earlier in the thread.

Just to add to this there's a useful analysis of the distinction between the ideas of IS supporters and the ideas of quietist salafis towards the end of this article (link already posted on the IS thread):

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Death threats to Charlie Hebdo journalist Zineb El-Rhazoui

http://www.20minutes.fr/societe/1545915-20150220-charlie-hebdo-zineb-el-rhazoui-mari-menaces-mort-photos-publiees

That story for us monoglots
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-supporters-call-charlie-hebdo-survivor-zineb-el-rhazoui-be-murdered-by-terrorist-lone-wolves-1488721

And I noticed this from India - female editor who published the ch cover
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6699436

Serge Forward

Namazie's clearly off-message and doesn't easily fit the lefty "pet muslim" stereotype. How very dare she :x

Yeh, who does she think she is, refusing the identity assigned her by the high priests of leftism...

Another article from Alternative Libertaire

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Charlie-Hebdo-Apres-l-emotion

Bangladeshi/American writer Avijit Roy killed leaving a book fair in Dhaka

http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2015/feb/26/writer-avijit-roy-killed-miscreants-attack

Kenan Malik: 'Be pragmatic, legitimise terror'

https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/be-pragmatic-legitimise-terror/

You beat me to posting the news about Avijit Roy, Mark.

From the International Humanists website:

Avijit Roy was a well-known writer, founder of the freethought blogging platform Mukto-Mona, which he described to IHEU as “an Internet congregation of freethinkers, rationalists, skeptics, atheists, and humanists of mainly Bengali and South Asian descent”.

In the past, anarchists and lib coms used to quite like freethinkers, rationalists, skeptics, atheists, and humanists.

In the past, anarchists and lib coms used to quite like freethinkers, rationalists, skeptics, atheists, and humanists.

Who is that a passive-aggressive swipe at?

Had a very good friend of mine have his gig attacked by islamists in Bangladesh, blew the place up killing a few people, all for putting on a multi cultural gig.

Rachel

You beat me to posting the news about Avijit Roy, Mark.

From the International Humanists website:

Avijit Roy was a well-known writer, founder of the freethought blogging platform Mukto-Mona, which he described to IHEU as “an Internet congregation of freethinkers, rationalists, skeptics, atheists, and humanists of mainly Bengali and South Asian descent”.

In the past, anarchists and lib coms used to quite like freethinkers, rationalists, skeptics, atheists, and humanists.

wrong murderers

Wojtek wrote
[/quote]Who is that a passive-aggressive swipe at?[/quote]

Not aimed at everybody here, just a few (loud) voices.

In the bigger picture, I notice that where there used to be an affinity between anarchists/commnunists and people who we can call ‘freethinkers’ even if they didn’t have class politics or whatever, and this doesn’t seem to be so true anymore. It’s quite noticeable that many people all over the left (including libcom left) feel very afraid to support anybody who criticises Muslim fundamentalism, because they worry that it's a racist thing to do, or else they worry about being called racist, which is fair, because they will certainly get that. But failure to oppose it or to make excuses for it makes everything worse, and is increasing anti-Muslim bigotry.

Caiman said something like: it’s all massively overplayed, and in European countries the only people who need to worry about it are people who come from Muslim communities themselves. Wrong. I’m not at risk from racist attack, but increase in both Islamism and state repression affects me in many ways in my daily life - in my work, my union, with my ESOL students, in my children’s schools…I can see that like any other reactionary movement it helps destroy all sorts of possibilities.

Actually I really want to find a forum for discussing what’s going on, not just with ISIS ‘over there’ but locally - how to talk with about the children going to Syria, how to respond to things like the introduction of Prevent into my workplace, how to show solidarity to people who need it (secularists, outspoken ex Muslims) even if they don’t have exactly our politics, how to keep critiquing concepts like freedom of speech or secularism or human rights as features of capitalist ‘equality’ without writing off people who are fighting for these things as racists or ‘western’.

I swing between wanting to avoid internet arguing, because it’s often not very nice and I’m not very good at it, and wanting to get stuck in myself with the telling people to stfu. So I dip in and out. I’ve also contributed to the atmosphere here that makes it difficult for discussion to take place (in my response to Ocelot hundreds of comments ago), so I’m not throwing any stones in that regard. But actually I’d like to be able to discuss the things I mention - anybody know where?

Rachel I'm sure you'd be more than welcome on the ex-muslims forum.

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com

Sometimes I feel the more a political issue really affects you, in your real life, the less you feel you can talk about it in political debate. Because of fear of reprisals, because you feel like you're getting really personal, because you feel you don't have an 'overview', because you're scared of getting 'too emotional', because if the argument gets all angry then it's overwhelming, and because it's too much having a whole load of guys telling you that you don't know what you are talking about all the time. So you gradually become more and more mute. That's what I feel has been happening to me on here.

Ok I didn't mean to make this all about me. Yes I also think we should talk about the things Rachel wants to talk about, for the same reasons.

Rachel - you go ahead and post what you like on Libcom without thinking twice mate - and if you feel put off by any posters, just tell them to go fuck themselves.

What plasmatelly said.

'After the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Hyper Cacher Jewish supermarket: thinking through the new and rethinking the old' - Pierre Rousset

http://siawi.org/article9147.html

Any thoughts about this article by Karima Bennoune?

The truth about Charlie: one year after the 7 January attacks

Mark.

Any thoughts about this article by Karima Bennoune?

The truth about Charlie: one year after the 7 January attacks

Tendentious.

Nothing new really. I think all the points in favour and against that position have already been explored in the thread above. I'm not really sure what the point of rehersing them again would be.

Interesting documentary about the climate in France after the attacks: https://vimeo.com/145816483

bakuninja wrote:

Interesting documentary about the climate in France after the attacks: https://vimeo.com/145816483

Having looked at it it comes over as traditional leftist stuff. It avoids looking at leftist racism - eg constantly quoting BDS members (a French organisation fixated purely on Palestine and Israel which calls for a boycottt of Israel , imposition of sanctions and disinvestment from the country), whilst ignoring such insane anti-semitic re-writing of history as this:

“What Hitler did to the Jews was done on purpose so that the world would sympathize with them and give them all the rights… What Hitler did to the Jews was wanted and planned for a specific purpose… They sacrificed some Jews so as to have everything they have today, Hitler took part in the colonization of Palestine, he was part of the plan….The relation of Hitler with the Rothchild family, this satanic Jewish family that owns all the land of Palestine and which is one of the most powerful families in the world”

- written by 2 BDS members, one of whom is the vice-president of BDS in a region in France. (quoted here).