Al-Qaeda in Yemen didn’t attack Charlie Hebdo because we are all Charlie Hebdo.What we do in the contemporary West is we protect groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, who malign everything we really believe, so they can make the funerals of our soldiers more painful for the parents of our beloved dead. We protect them, but fuck them. Their heads are the ones that belong on spikes; we are just too nice to post them.
The opposite. It sent in the brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi because Charlie Hebdo was almost alone.
Yes, that’s right, almost alone, despite the hundreds of thousands marching with their “Je Suis Charlie” placards.... Even the Jyllands-Posten, the Danish paper that originally publish the cartoons that provided Muslims with a pretext for mayhem and murder, even that paper has declined to republish anything that might be “offensive” to Muslims because, they said, “violence works.”
Well, "we" are.
Anyway, this business about being 'almost alone' is more complicated than it looks. Mostly I think outfits like Charlie deserve protection as a kind of limit case. They aren't the core of what we're about, as a decent people. They're about our tolerance for liberty, even when it descends into garbage. We believe in liberty, so we tolerate -- we defend, we protect -- the garbage.
That doesn't mean it isn't still garbage. And maybe we haven't found the right point of balance yet: Maybe there's still a better solution for groups like Westboro, wherein they can be made to accept responsibility for the garbage they bring into the public space.
26 comments:
That's part of the struggle of freedom. We have to defend (some of) the bad in order to defend the good because, not being angels, we can't properly discriminate the one from the other with sufficient precision. And because we can't always not do (some of) the one while pursuing the other.
Eric Hines
Ah, but that works both ways as a principle. Maybe we allow the killing just a certain number of possible bad actors since, after all, not being angels we can't adequately discriminate. So we err on the side of the good by hanging both the probable as the obvious scoundrels.
In what sense where they "not protected"?
I'm content to use any amount of social pressure on jerks like Westboro--short of violence. Snub them, refuse to do business with them, ridicule them, whatever. But if someone uses violence on Westboro members because of the offensiveness of their ideas, it's incumbent on us to stop him.
On the other hand, I have no problem with establishing a cordon around a funeral service. Westboro is free to hold whatever vile opinions it likes, but not to disrupt a funeral. If you're disrupting a funeral, I don't care if you're reciting the Constitution or Shakespeare: you need to get out. You weren't invited, and you have no natural right to be there.
That's pretty much the point I was suggesting: not approving of their speech isn't tantamount to 'not protecting' it unless the existing laws are either used to silence them (this doesn't appear to be the case with Hebdo) or the police refuse to go after their attackers (also not the case here).
I've been rather bemused by a lot of the commentary on this on - people (not referring to Grim) seem to be conflating a whole lot of things that probably shouldn't be conflated.
I can think Hebdo's satire puerile (and I mostly do) while still defending their right to publish and also their right not to be slaughtered by Islamist nutjobs. I can question the wisdom of a woman who habitually drinks way too much, parties with men she doesn't know well, and dresses provocatively without condoning sexual assault or approving of men who are likewise careless in such matters.
The idea that free speech as to the propriety or wisdom of this satire somehow constitutes a failure to protect free speech strikes me as extremely tenuous. Free speech includes the right to disapprove or even to suggest that certain things could either have been said differently or even not at all :p
Like Tex, I support Westboro's right to objectionable speech even while deploring that speech. It's a LONG way from speaking one's own opinion freely to condoning murderous attacks.
I'm troubled by the line of commentary that argues the appropriate social response to the Hebdo attack is to re-think the practice of saying provocative things. I think it's fine to point out that people who insult murderous thugs should take into account their vulnerability to retaliation from murderous thugs. It's not fine, however, to say "the lesson we should draw from this murderous attack is that people should be more careful not to annoy the thugs in future." It's a muddled message, but the import seems to be "if we agree that your provocative statements were puerile and less amusing than you obviously thought they were, we're going to drag our feet in taking action against the large and growing segment of our society that openly threatens to keep the retaliatory behavior up." Yes, the police are definitely going after these particular thugs, but France in general isn't taking seriously the behavior of other thugs before it rises to quite this level.
Among other things it's insane that the magazine workers weren't permitted to arm themselves, or their guards, and that the first-responder police themselves weren't armed. It also seems that the French justice system made a token effort at restraining at least one of the attackers when he was first caught participating in jihadist garbage. That approach to gun ownership and law enforcement sends a message that French society's preferred response to the danger of murderous response to blasphemy is to wring one's hands and hope people will stop poking the bear.
I think it's fine to point out that people who insult murderous thugs should take into account their vulnerability to retaliation from murderous thugs. It's not fine, however, to say "the lesson we should draw from this murderous attack is that people should be more careful not to annoy the thugs in future."
And yet that's pretty much what some conservatives say about women who act as outlined in my first comment :p (essentially, "What did they expect?", as distinct from, "You voluntarily made yourself more vulnerable, but what happened to you was still inexcusable... period.")
There are plenty of ways to criticize Islam that don't (also) gratuitously offend. We recognize that when Christianity as an institution or belief system is criticized inappropriately. And yet - Christians generally don't go shooting up their critics :p
All I'm saying is that I'm decidedly *NOT* Charlie. I most certainly DO condemn what happened to them, unconditionally. And I question the need to gratuitously offend in order to make a point that can be so easily be made in a non-jackwagonly manner.
And I see no real inconsistency in any of these positions. FWIW, the French police (as with most of Europe's police) are much less restrained and more authoritarian than our police. Paris at times is like an armed camp - it's not at all unusual to see SWAT-style cops walking the streets.
I am not sure I condemn violence against people who are doing their best to provoke it. I condemn murder, of course, but I often think we go too far in condemning all violence. If the father of a soldier forced to endure a Westboro protest at his son's funeral were to punch one of them in the nose, I'd think we should do nothing whatsoever to punish him for the action. If Westboro seeks to press charges against him, as they always do, I would think the proper response would be, "What did you expect to happen?"
This attack violates a number of my principles -- against murder, against using firearms against unarmed and weak persons, against ganging up on people, and so forth. There's plenty to condemn.
But I think maybe there is a point at which we should say, "Of course you have the right to say it, and nobody will stop you, but don't come crying to us if you get bopped in the nose for it." If we drew the line there, maybe there'd be more nose-bopping and fewer gratuitously offensive cartoons, and we'd reach a place where we were both less violent (no mass murder, and probably pretty quickly no need to nose-bop) and less indecent (fewer ugly public statements meant to insult).
I am not sure I condemn violence against people who are doing their best to provoke it. I condemn murder, of course, but I often think we go too far in condemning all violence. If the father of a soldier forced to endure a Westboro protest at his son's funeral were to punch one of them in the nose, I'd think we should do nothing whatsoever to punish him for the action. If Westboro seeks to press charges against him, as they always do, I would think the proper response would be, "What did you expect to happen?"
While my sympathies are 100% with your fictional father, the question of what constitutions enough provocation is not always an easy one to answer. Most laws against violence do contain mitigating defences (times when, though we admit the accused did break the law, we will either excuse him/her from punishment or lessen the severity of the punishment - time served, probation, community service, etc.).
The problem, I think, is that justified nose-bobbing is very much in the eye of the beholder, and you get people making excuses for people they like while ruling against people they don't like (much as the media publish gratuitously sacreligeous images if they involve Christanity or Judeism, but draw the line at ones that offend Muslims).
What's the general rule that allows the law to draw that line (that will be enforced fairly)? I know a LOT of men who think another man looking too long at their wife/girlfriend justifies a punch in the nose. Or even looking at all, in the case of jealous/possessive men.
Though I wholeheartedly agree not all violence should be punished, I"m hard pressed to come up with a general rule that would work, and even more skeptical that such a policy would lead to less ugly public behavior.
But I'm open to arguments to the contrary!
"bopping", not "bobbing", please!
If I saw a problem of rape in my community, and was agitating for better law enforcement, I'd be annoyed if the answer I got back was, "Oh, how I wish these women would quit provoking attacks, so we wouldn't have to invest in more policemen on the streets, or risk annoying men who might be unjustly accused, especially men who go around proclaiming their right to rape at will, and whose religion will be affronted if we contradict them."
At the same time, I'd be exasperated with the women if they refused to take into account the real danger of rape on the streets while they were occupied by guys whose religion told them rape was OK.
The two attitudes are and should be completely separate. No matter how exasperated I am by women who go out alone at night unarmed because they think acknowledging the threat is the same thing as excusing it, it will not affect my outrage at the rapists or my willingness to expend resources to get them off the streets. The mistake is to hope we can cure the problem of rapists by removing the temptation posed by their would-be victims. The cure for people who can't withstand that kind of temptation is to lock them up (or kill them), not to lock up their victims.
To Grim's point, there's a low level of violence I wouldn't intervene to prohibit, either, and a pop in the nose as a response to a serious insult qualifies. That's in a gray area determined by community standards. It requires a delicate balance and a good bit of community consensus to work.
That's true, Tex and Cass. The question of whether the punch was deserved is a judgment call.
Of course, that's true even in the cases of much more serious justified violence: questions about when it was reasonable to believe your life was in danger, justifying shooting someone, are also judgment calls. So even though we have a positive law that states that such violence is permitted, it still needs to be carefully applied.
We have several modes for applying it: prosecutors may elect not to prosecute, police not to arrest, courts may have 'stand your ground' hearings that set aside charges before the trial, and of course the jury at the trial is a kind of last ditch method for the community's standards to judge the particular facts.
All I'm suggesting is that we could handle these cases in a similar way.
Makes sense. I think the reasonable person standard is a good one for making these kinds of determinations, though it's certainly not perfect!
The two attitudes are and should be completely separate. No matter how exasperated I am by women who go out alone at night unarmed because they think acknowledging the threat is the same thing as excusing it, it will not affect my outrage at the rapists or my willingness to expend resources to get them off the streets. The mistake is to hope we can cure the problem of rapists by removing the temptation posed by their would-be victims. The cure for people who can't withstand that kind of temptation is to lock them up (or kill them), not to lock up their victims.
Exactly - well stated!
When the State is unwilling or unable to fulfill it's primary purpose and first principle, providing security for it's citizens, then the citizens will eventually provide their own, or shift loyalties to a organization that will protect them.
But wait! If we give up on these guys, what will happen to the Head Start program?
That's right, Raven, although notice that it goes beyond what the Declaration of Independence says:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
You're locating the right to abandon loyalty to a government not when it is actively destructive to those ends, but when it is merely nonperforming. I think that's got to be right, but it's a stronger claim; though perhaps you're not advocating an actual abolishing of the government, merely an abandoning of it and its systems.
When the State is unwilling or unable to fulfill it's primary purpose and first principle, providing security for it's citizens, then the citizens will eventually provide their own, or shift loyalties to a organization that will protect them.
Maybe when I see one of these organizations that can protect me, I'll consider switching my loyalties to it :p
Not seeing anything close to that, yet.
And really, what organization can protect people before they're attacked? I'm not sure that's a realistic goal, and I know for sure people aren't willing to give up the amount of freedom they'd have to give up to have any hope of being that secure.
I'm not aware of any, either, but Raven is pointing to a real danger. How many otherwise moderately sane Germans fell for the Nazi schtick because they were terrified that the weak state couldn't protect them against either financial collapse or Communism? We're not at our best in choosing new political allegiances in such emergencies. It's a rotten idea for a government so to obsess on side issues like, say, the redistribution of wealth, or the access of 100% of transgendered children to free sex-change operations, that it fails in its primary duty to promote an ordered security. History tells us that the next charismatic Strong Leader will suddenly find a lot of gullible supporters.
... Raven is pointing to a real danger. How many otherwise moderately sane Germans fell for the Nazi schtick because they were terrified that the weak state couldn't protect them against either financial collapse or Communism?
Oh, I agree absolutely :) I wasn't pooh-poohing the substance Raven's comment so much as just being pedantic. I'm already on record as being skeptical of claims that if government just stops doing certain things, they'll magically be done anyway by Keebler elves or fairies or good hearted Progressives who care deeply about my welfare :p
Yanno, like all those 'tax the rich' types who dodge inequality-reducing taxes whilst complaining that the Evil Rich (Trademark pending) don't pay as much in taxes as their secretaries do.
I think the classic example is the opening scene from The Godfather.
If that's supposed to convince me that benevolent 3rd parties will do a better job than the rule of law, it's not a great one.
That's a bargain with the Devil, and not one I'd want to sign off on. Better to do the killing yourself. At least the price there is clear. Protection rackets don't seem like a viable alternative to me.
Sorry - that wasn't exactly the most coherent comment, was it? :p
Hopefully you know what I was trying to say. If not, I'll be happy to try and explain it better.
I took Grim merely to be pointing out what kind of power is likely to move into a vacuum, not approving of it.
Well, I just meant that it was the classic dramatic expression of your point, Tex. We can talk about Hitler and the formation of a new government, but you can see what happens even if the existing government remains formally in place. There are alternative systems, traditional systems, that people turn to when the government doesn't do its job.
I agree with Cass, though, that I'd rather deal with the problems myself. But we saw a lot of this in Iraq, and honestly, there the tribes -- brutal revenge and all -- were a more humane system than either Saddam's government had been, or than the government we put in place turned out to be once we pulled out and removed all the restraint on their behavior. So it may not always be the worst thing, depending on what your alternatives are.
I shouldn't comment at the end of a long work day - my brain is somewhat fried :)
Post a Comment