Charlie Hebdo Attack

[Peat]

No, sorry you cannot unfortunatly and this is leading to the raise of extrem right ideas down here.

I had a lot of friends at school 20 years ago, from different origins, like italians (a lot), spanish or portuguese, and from north africa (morocco, algeria and tunisia). But only the muslim ones did not want to get integrated to the french society. It is a big shame by the way as when you are a kid, you are more tolerent than being adult ... To prove it, I would say : see at every soccer world cup what happens. If France is playing their own parent's country of origin, most of the european immigrants will support their new country. North african won't ! See all the mess during last WC when algeria qualifyed to 1/8th ... Their own team won and they went in the streets of France riotting !!! How can you tolerate this in your country ?
In 2001, we played Algeria in a friendly match. The crowd was essentially algerian/french and they went to boo the french anthem : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0RrhBrMXbw is it normal ?

And again, you could say that we did not do anything to integrate them ... But I will again reply, why did the italians, spanish and portuguese succeed to integrate french society, having the same conditions when the all arrived here ?

But you can.

Look at the USA. It has very nearly as many Muslims as the UK, but how much trouble has it had? How many men have slipped away to fight on jihad? Comparatively, the answer is "Not many".

The reason? American Muslims, mostly don't live in ethnic ghettos. They're not like Algerians in France, the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in England, the Turks in Germany and Holland. They're not poor like those guys. American Muslims are more likely to be in a long term inter-faith relationship than Mormons.

What you are pointing at is a failure to integrate, not the impossibility of integration. I'm not wagging fingers or condemning here. Most of western Europe has failed, including my country. Europe has a history of migrant populations that simply fade into their host nation's general make-up, leaving behind nothing but a few funny surnames and dishes in five generations time.

But the Muslim migrations came over here with vastly different ideals. Most of them came over here incredibly poor. They have clustered together and stayed clustered together. They have been victims of racism in a way that I don't believe your Portuguese/Italian/Spanish populations have been - and I know England's Portuguese/French populations haven't been. Why would they want to get integrated with a society that mainly gives them ****? These kids grow up and think the country they live in despises them, it despises the values they get from their parents, and they look for new identities. They grow up with problems, and like so many kids with problems, they look for ideologies that tell them their problems aren't their fault.

I'll tell you what, you'd better hope I'm right, because the alternative is mass-deporting these people, and I don't really think thats possible.

 

[Gavin]

No one has mentioned how France banned the face covering veils in 2010, with the president in 2009 saying 'religious veils are not welcome in France'. It was an attempt for people to live 'together', yet what it probably did was shop Muslim women leaving their houses as it was prohibited by their religion. In an attempt to bring people together, they segregated one group of society.

 

[goodNumber10]

But you can.

Look at the USA. It has very nearly as many Muslims as the UK, but how much trouble has it had? How many men have slipped away to fight on jihad? Comparatively, the answer is "Not many".

The reason? American Muslims, mostly don't live in ethnic ghettos. They're not like Algerians in France, the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in England, the Turks in Germany and Holland. They're not poor like those guys. American Muslims are more likely to be in a long term inter-faith relationship than Mormons.

What you are pointing at is a failure to integrate, not the impossibility of integration. I'm not wagging fingers or condemning here. Most of western Europe has failed, including my country. Europe has a history of migrant populations that simply fade into their host nation's general make-up, leaving behind nothing but a few funny surnames and dishes in five generations time.

But the Muslim migrations came over here with vastly different ideals. Most of them came over here incredibly poor. They have clustered together and stayed clustered together. They have been victims of racism in a way that I don't believe your Portuguese/Italian/Spanish populations have been - and I know England's Portuguese/French populations haven't been. Why would they want to get integrated with a society that mainly gives them ****? These kids grow up and think the country they live in despises them, it despises the values they get from their parents, and they look for new identities. They grow up with problems, and like so many kids with problems, they look for ideologies that tell them their problems aren't their fault.

I'll tell you what, you'd better hope I'm right, because the alternative is mass-deporting these people, and I don't really think thats possible.

this is pretty much what i was trying to say... well put.

 

[McTallshort]

Yes, but you can't really seriously compare Italian, Spanish Portugese immigration because they didn't come to France as an essentially opressed society. North Africa and the Maghreb was a serious area of conflict for France over the last 200 years(?), the French-Algerian war and Suez etc... were huge conflicts that are well remembered by an elder generation of immigrants.

Expecting these anti-national emotions to disperse over one generation? well it's just not going to happen.

Both Portugese and Spanish immagrants from 20-30 years ago would have come from a facist dictatorship

- - - Updated - - -

I think one of the first things we need to realise is you have a right to free speech and you have a right to be offended, you DON'T have a right to prevent someone exercising their right to free expression just because you find it offensive.

Frankly I'm shocked when material is published and you get sympathisers who say "well it shouldn't have been published because it was offensive" completely ignoring the violent reaction and putting all the blame on us westeners. We should not abide by this self-censorship any more than extremists trying to silence it. We in the west are lucky enough to have free speech and we should protect it, not give it up at the first sign of people getting offended. Otherwise it's simply blasphemy laws in another guise.

So it would be ok to offend Ethnic minorities, gay people, people with disablities and the poor?

 

[goodNumber10]

Both Portugese and Spanish immagrants from 20-30 years ago would have come from a facist dictatorship

Yes, to a country that wasn't synonymous with that regim... in fact to a country that was directly opposed to the Nationalists.

Which is a very different situation to how many of the north Africans came to France which was a country their own was directly in conflict with.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

So it would be ok to offend Ethnic minorities, gay people, people with disablities and the poor?

Don't confuse something being ok with having the right to do something. No it isn't ok to offend people but it's even less ok to silence anything that might cause offense. Someone who goes around attempting to cause offense to minorities, gay people etc etc should be treated with the contempt they deserve, NOT killed or otherwise silenced. Again look back at the fiasco a few years back with the Danish cartoons. There were westeners who were DEFENDING the violence caused by Muslims because they had been offended. I don't know about you but when I'm offended my first thought is not to riot. A few years back the Pope came to this country and compared Atheism and secularism to tyrannical regimes like the Nazis, that offended me. Did I get a gun and attempt to shoot the Pope? Of course not. If you are offended then by all means you are free to express that but you are NOT free to turn to violence.

Frankly I find it sickening when you get people defending acts of violence because a certain groups feels offended.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

But you can.

Look at the USA. It has very nearly as many Muslims as the UK, but how much trouble has it had? How many men have slipped away to fight on jihad? Comparatively, the answer is "Not many".

The reason? American Muslims, mostly don't live in ethnic ghettos. They're not like Algerians in France, the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in England, the Turks in Germany and Holland. They're not poor like those guys. American Muslims are more likely to be in a long term inter-faith relationship than Mormons.

What you are pointing at is a failure to integrate, not the impossibility of integration. I'm not wagging fingers or condemning here. Most of western Europe has failed, including my country. Europe has a history of migrant populations that simply fade into their host nation's general make-up, leaving behind nothing but a few funny surnames and dishes in five generations time.

But the Muslim migrations came over here with vastly different ideals. Most of them came over here incredibly poor. They have clustered together and stayed clustered together. They have been victims of racism in a way that I don't believe your Portuguese/Italian/Spanish populations have been - and I know England's Portuguese/French populations haven't been. Why would they want to get integrated with a society that mainly gives them ****? These kids grow up and think the country they live in despises them, it despises the values they get from their parents, and they look for new identities. They grow up with problems, and like so many kids with problems, they look for ideologies that tell them their problems aren't their fault.

I'll tell you what, you'd better hope I'm right, because the alternative is mass-deporting these people, and I don't really think thats possible.

Man I agree with your general opinions on this but I do have to say your comparison between Muslims in the United States and here isn't quite on right. Islam is significant more prominent here. In the Uk we have in absolute terms more Muslims. Proportionally therefore it's even more significant since we have a far smaller population.

But more importantly is the difference in diversity between the two. The Uk is diverse not because we have people of different skin colours but because they are early generation immigrants. This is genuine diversity because it means the family in question came to this part of the world more recently and usually means the links to their original 'homeland' are more likely to be preserved. With early generation immigration, genuine cultural integration is going to be rarer because the family unit is preserved. US cities like New York might think of themselves as the most diverse in the world but frankly they're not. Black American and Muslim communities have been there so long that it's no longer diversity because these people are american first, Eritrean second, etc.

In short what I'm saying is That Western Europe(generally speaking)with Our less stringent immigration policies and therefore a more consistent stream of population movement, faces very unique challenges with regards to integration and I really think the example of America sheds any light on our failures. I don't feel our culture drives Muslims to herd together; I feel rather that the key units of family and society are key In this country and in France because they have been maintained.

 

[McTallshort]

You said free speech is the right to offend someone and that is the opinion lots of the media seem to be sprouting at the minute. Its a nonsense with free speech comes responsibility you cannot just ridicule someone in the media and sit back and cry free speech if the attack is homophobic or racist. To me attacking religion is no different you cannot have one rule of one and one for another.

What these nutters did yesterday was disgusting but would our free speech loving press have taken the same line if it was a far right news paper that had been attacked?

I dont get offended Range I get angry sometimes but thats a different thing and I certainly dont believe those cartoonists in Paris derserve what they got but there is a lot of double standards in our so called free and civilised Western culture and we are isolating large parts of our population because because we dont see that.

- - - Updated - - -

But you can.

Look at the USA. It has very nearly as many Muslims as the UK, but how much trouble has it had? How many men have slipped away to fight on jihad? Comparatively, the answer is "Not many".

The reason? American Muslims, mostly don't live in ethnic ghettos. They're not like Algerians in France, the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in England, the Turks in Germany and Holland. They're not poor like those guys. American Muslims are more likely to be in a long term inter-faith relationship than Mormons.

What you are pointing at is a failure to integrate, not the impossibility of integration. I'm not wagging fingers or condemning here. Most of western Europe has failed, including my country. Europe has a history of migrant populations that simply fade into their host nation's general make-up, leaving behind nothing but a few funny surnames and dishes in five generations time.

But the Muslim migrations came over here with vastly different ideals. Most of them came over here incredibly poor. They have clustered together and stayed clustered together. They have been victims of racism in a way that I don't believe your Portuguese/Italian/Spanish populations have been - and I know England's Portuguese/French populations haven't been. Why would they want to get integrated with a society that mainly gives them ****? These kids grow up and think the country they live in despises them, it despises the values they get from their parents, and they look for new identities. They grow up with problems, and like so many kids with problems, they look for ideologies that tell them their problems aren't their fault.

I'll tell you what, you'd better hope I'm right, because the alternative is mass-deporting these people, and I don't really think thats possible.

Just to make a small point on this.....most terroists/jhadists etc etc do not come from ghettos they tend to be well educated, well fed, self indulgant types who are around the higher tiers of their community and most of the time they are rebelling as much against their parents as they are against whoever they choose to go to war with.

 

[j'nuh]

The reason? American Muslims, mostly don't live in ethnic ghettos. They're not like Algerians in France, the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in England, the Turks in Germany and Holland. They're not poor like those guys. American Muslims are more likely to be in a long term inter-faith relationship than Mormons.

I grew up in Bradford, this rings very true to me.

For a city that is extremely multicultural if you look at the stats on the numbers of minority groups living in the city, it can be hard to believe at times. If you live centrally in some of the more run-down areas, you would think that Bradford was 80+% Muslim. If you live on the outskirts, you wouldn't even think that Bradford stood out as a multicultural city (provided you didn't work centrally). It is sad to see the level of segregation that exists within the city. Each race seems to keep to their own, and therefore there's little mutual understanding. When I first joined my school, there were many racially-motivated problems. People on my bus would mock or throw things at Muslims, they would react with putting bricks through windows. (Note that the people on my bus were idiots in general, it wasn't always necessarily directed towards Muslims. Spitting on cars, chairs on fire, fireworks out of windows.) The police may as well never have existed for all the input they had.

It's an issue of poverty. And it isn't necessarily just poverty on the Muslim side either. There's the second issue of Northern poverty, with a lot of other races living in relative poverty too. Bradford, as a city, is run-down. Regeneration projects have been constantly put back and back. There is little to do in the city. Business is non-existent, and dwarfed by Leeds next door. Jobs are hard to come by within the city. Regeneration may help it if it is ever achieved. So many Muslim populations are situated in poor Northern cities. The faster the government actually does something about poverty in the North, the better race relations will be.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

You said free speech is the right to offend someone and that is the opinion lots of the media seem to be sprouting at the minute. Its a nonsense with free speech comes responsibility you cannot just ridicule someone in the media and sit back and cry free speech if the attack is homophobic or racist. To me attacking religion is no different you cannot have one rule of one and one for another.

What these nutters did yesterday was disgusting but would our free speech loving press have taken the same line if it was a far right news paper that had been attacked?

I dont get offended Range I get angry sometimes but thats a different thing and I certainly dont believe those cartoonists in Paris derserve what they got but there is a lot of double standards in our so called free and civilised Western culture and we are isolating large parts of our population because because we dont see that.

Yes free speech is primarily the right to say things that are controversial and/or offensive. If you say things that are fine then nobody is going to stop you. The right to free speech is to allow you to say things that otherwise people or governments would try to silence. Censoring free speech because it might offend someone is attacking the very reason it is protected in the first place. You are confusing who is responsible for what, they are responsible for attempting to offend but that is it. The target is responsible both for taking offense and for how they act. You cannot blame the one doing the offending for the action of the target except in exceptional circumstances, even then it's a fuzzy line.

Name one other group that has responded with the same degree of hatred and violence to ridicule as the Muslim communities. They are entirely responsible for their actions and some talk as if, once someone is offended they have no ability to control their response and therefore are not responsible for anything that they do. This is clearly ridiculous. People in the Islamic world are saying FAR worse things about the West and Israel in particular yet would you condone us killing them for it? Would you say they should have been more responsible whilst ignoring our responsibility to not react like that? It's not an argument.

Tbh I don't care if it was right wing or not, I'm in favour of full freedom of speech and then a full freedom to respond but NOT with force. The exception I would make would be defamation, intentionally lying about an individual in order to cause them harm. I do not think that is a freedom but still should not be met with violence.

Had the Muslim community just said they were offended and maybe got some representatives to put their point across, they probably would have had more support. It's the fact some Muslims killed them that set this off. Other groups are routinely mocked and/or vilified in the Western media without the media members being murdered or riots starting.

 

[William18]

We don't have free speech so we can say it is sunny outside. People definitely have the right to see offensive and controversial things. One crucial point is that it is not the person who says things which determines whether or not something is offensive. If I walk up to someone and say that their mother is a slut then sure most people would find that offensive. That's just offensive, stupid and pointless. If I walk up to someone and say that Islam is a religion which breeds violence then a lot of people would find that offensive. However, I could use statistics and data to back up that point.

The attacks were about trying to silence us in the West. The attacks were trying to force an Islamic interpretation of blasphemy laws. These particular attacks had very very little to do with any political events and a lot to do with Islam as a religion.

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

Very Tragic news, very sad to be reading about this

 

[smartcooky]

I agree with you here on everything my man!!
The treatment of their own people is what I don't understand. Their resentment towards the rest of the western powers I do. Everything from seeing their own, in foreign countries treated the way they are by their adopted countries. The giving of Palestine to the jews to seeing Americas unwavering loyalty to Israel.
I just don't and never can understand the killing of their own by ISIS.

Excuse me? Giving Palestine to the Jews? It was already theirs, they were just given it back!

The Jews have lived in Palestine for over 5,000 years. Christians didn't even exist until 2000 years ago, Islam didn't exist until about 1,400 years ago.

 

[Draggs]

Excuse me? Giving Palestine to the Jews? It was already theirs, they were just given it back!

The Jews have lived in Palestine for over 5,000 years. Christians didn't even exist until 2000 years ago, Islam didn't exist until about 1,400 years ago.

Let's keep discussion on the actual subject. If we want to open it up to Middle East affairs, this thing would swell like a prop during the post match buffet.

 

[McTallshort]

Yes free speech is primarily the right to say things that are controversial and/or offensive. If you say things that are fine then nobody is going to stop you. The right to free speech is to allow you to say things that otherwise people or governments would try to silence. Censoring free speech because it might offend someone is attacking the very reason it is protected in the first place. You are confusing who is responsible for what, they are responsible for attempting to offend but that is it. The target is responsible both for taking offense and for how they act. You cannot blame the one doing the offending for the action of the target except in exceptional circumstances, even then it's a fuzzy line.

Name one other group that has responded with the same degree of hatred and violence to ridicule as the Muslim communities. They are entirely responsible for their actions and some talk as if, once someone is offended they have no ability to control their response and therefore are not responsible for anything that they do. This is clearly ridiculous. People in the Islamic world are saying FAR worse things about the West and Israel in particular yet would you condone us killing them for it? Would you say they should have been more responsible whilst ignoring our responsibility to not react like that? It's not an argument.

Tbh I don't care if it was right wing or not, I'm in favour of full freedom of speech and then a full freedom to respond but NOT with force. The exception I would make would be defamation, intentionally lying about an individual in order to cause them harm.

Had the Muslim community just said they were offended and maybe got some representatives to put their point across, they probably would have had more support. It's the fact some Muslims killed them that set this off. Other groups are routinely mocked and/or vilified in the Western media without the media members being murdered or riots starting.

Muslim communities? bit broad brush that for saying we are talking about a violent minority. OK Animal rights groups have behaved in violent ways towards Sporting and Medical practices that they deem offensive. A Sikh group no so long ago rioted out side a theatre because of a play they deemed offensive and what other groups are routinely mocked by the western media? As far as I can see outside of Politics the only groups who are deemed OK to mock/Vilify are ones from religion. I would go futher and say in the UK the only group that are mocked would be Christians. Its almost like they are not allowed to attack anyone else so they go both barrels at those they can. Thats nothing to do with freedom of speech and more to do with ridiculing whoever you are allowed to.

 

[smartcooky]

Let's keep discussion on the actual subject. If we want to open it up to Middle East affairs, this thing would swell like a prop during the post match buffet.

Ok, sorry. Its just that I find that particular myth galling!

 

[ENZED-88]

Excuse me? Giving Palestine to the Jews? It was already theirs, they were just given it back!

The Jews have lived in Palestine for over 5,000 years. Christians didn't even exist until 2000 years ago, Islam didn't exist until about 1,400 years ago.

Let's have a look at it. Jews twice tried to rebel against the Romans the first ending in massacre the 2nd 60 70 years later the Romans had had enough an exiled them, the ones that stayed assimilated into various cultures. Israel has been controlled by many people from the Canaanites Egyptians Babylonians Persians Macedonians Arabs Romans and I'm pretty sure I've missed a few. Please show me where they have the authority to roll up and take it because " it was already theirs" as you say.
The two times I have been to Israel I met people with American European even Australian accents more than that of people with the local accent (probably because I never visited the West Bank) the state of Israel is made up of immigrant people who are not even closely related to the slaves who fled Egypt thousands of years ago.
Going of your logic north an South Island of New Zealand should be maori land (it was theirs first) with everyone else forced to live on stewart island..

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY

Sums up the whole issue of the middle east

 

[dasNdanger]

I'm hearing that one of the cops killed was Muslim. Is this true?




das

 

[goodNumber10]

I'm hearing that one of the cops killed was Muslim. Is this true?




das

Yes. The one shot on the ground.