Acts of Terrorism megathread

[Crazy_Ivan80]

https://artofuss.blog/2020/10/19/zineb-el-rhazoui%E2%80%89-%E2%80%89le-ccif-mene-un-djihad%E2%80%89judiciaire/

from someone who can know.

[Josquius]

Freedom of thought and opinion and yelling fire in a crowded theatre are not the same thing.

Sure. It's easy to see with the extremes. Its clear to say that an act of free speech that very directly causes harm in the moments after you perform it, is out of line.
But there's a whole lot of grey areas in the middle- what of those preachers who have a slant on religion that is harmful to non-believers, or conspiracy theorists spreading idiotic lies that 5G antennas are killing people, or deliberate fake news about a refugee raping and murdering a 10 year old that never happened?
The fact is from the very get-go with yelling fire that free speech is not a 100% free for all and there must always be some level of control in place.

I don't agree. I think it is about religion and fanaticism. Especially when we are talking about Pakistanis getting angry about something some French person did. Why would Pakistanis otherwise hate the French?

Its in their domain as a conservative Muslim rather than as a Pakistani. No doubt helped along by fake news and radical preachers who want to pull conservative muslism over the line into full radicalism.
Likewise on the other side of the fence with radicals in the west. Sometimes they operate for their country. Other times its about their race or western civilization as a whole. People have multiple aspects to their identity and any one of these can be exploited.

Well I disagree. Rules against blasphemy and apostasy and their social enforcement by fanatics is not new. And even to the extent that Islamism is a reaction to the western imperialism, that was not always so. There are plenty of ways to respond, such as Pan-Arabism.

So you're saying this Charlie Hebdo saga is completely disconnected to the general extremist Islam trends of recent decades?
I wouldn't agree there.
I have no doubt in a world without al quaida et al (where the cartoons wouldn't exist but...let's ignore that as it ruins the whole thing) that you'd still get plenty of conservative muslims moaning, maybe a fatwa from some far away priest. But it wouldn't be anything like as big a deal. Certainly you wouldn't have gotten the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

But I don't think this is a reaction to Western imperialism so much as these cultures being opened up to outside ideas that are changing their communities and causing a crisis in their religion. The internet age is rapidly speeding this process up. I talked about this a few years ago but the trends are really accelerating now.

Ish. There's the western ideas influencing them, but then there's also the muslim reformation going on with radical islamic teachings from the other side. There's also the massive factor of simple economics and desperate young men by their very nature looking for *something*.
Its all interconnected but it'd be a massive leap to say its about Islam being naturally against modern ideas as some are wont to do. Lest we forget historically Islam was far more tolerant than Christianity.

]
I would ask for statistics showing crackdowns in the west and young people becoming more Islamic in response. Now there will always be fanatics and young people are drawn to fanaticism. But is this, in fact, what young muslims are doing?

I'm not sure how you'd measure this.
Pretty sure I have seen some polls on perceptions of Islamophobia amongst muslims, perhaps tracked over years?

There will always be extremists and young people are drawn to fanaticism. However not necessarily Islamicist fanaticism. Thats merely the fashion of the moment.

I bring the following data to your attention:

https://www.arabbarometer.org/media-news/young-arabs-are-changing-their-beliefs-and-perceptions-new-survey/

The main findings were published by The Economist on 5 December 2019, showing that 'across the region the share of people expressing much trust in political parties, most of which have a religious tint, has fallen by well over a third since 2011, to 15 per cent. ... The doubts extend to religious leaders. In 2013, around 51 per cent of respondents said they trusted their religious leaders to a "great" or "medium" extent. When a comparable question was asked last year, the number was down to 40 per cent. ... The share of Arabs describing themselves as "not religious" is up to 13 per cent, from 8 per cent in 2013. That includes nearly half of young Tunisians, a third of young Libyans, a quarter of young Algerians and a fifth of young Egyptians.'

Interesting. This tells me Islamism is ultimately failing to do what it's real goal is and react against the encroachment of new ideas into the Muslim world. As a reactionary force it is starting to fumble.

This survey was particularly incredible:

https://iranintl.com/en/iran/iranians-have-lost-their-faith-according-survey

Yes, I wouldn't have any complaints about this. It does line up. 11/9 was 20 years ago now. Islamic extremism will have lost much of its youthful luster. Daesh's flash in the pan will also have done much to burn a lot of the potential influence in the current generation.
Its worth noting however these not religious numbers are still small and distrust of the established power blocks is a core part of the Islamic extremist ideology.

According to the results, 78% of Iranians believe in God, but only 26% of them believe in "the coming of the Messiah (Imam Mahdi)", which is one of the main beliefs of the Twelver Shiites.

While only 32% of Iranians consider themselves Shia Muslims, 9% have claimed to be atheists and 22% do not align with any religion. Half of the population used to believe but does not anymore and 6% have converted to a new religion.

I don't believe that. That is a mindblowing shift if true. A historic collapse of Islam in Iran. I...just...I would need to see much more conclusive proof to believe something that outside my expectations. But I will say that sometimes the best way to discredit an idea is to put it in charge, so maybe this is just the impact of decades of the Islamic State being in power. I don't know.[/quote]

Yeah, its quite interesting how irreligious Iranians are. Matches up with my personal encounters over the years too. In large part no doubt influenced by the powers that be in a not particularly great nation being conservative muslims.
Though a bit odd to mention Iran in this context. The sunni/shia split holds strong and most extremism we see this century is from the shia side of things. 
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with regards to the topic?

And these kinds of reactions against apostasy and blasphemy by those freely choosing to go their own way should be opposed, especially in our own western countries. Drawing Mohammed or doing whatever should be allowed, especially from ex-Muslims but even from those just seeking to mock or lampoon or critisize religions. Because I think that is just as important as supporting religosity.

But it is a tricky situation isn't it? Because we want to support the rights of apostates while also supporting the religious freedoms and rights of those who remain Muslims.

Yes. Its not the simple black and white for or against free speech that some would have it presented as.
As mentioned a factor that is massively damaged by the existence of counter productive groups who have no interest in seeking a genuine solution and will exploit free speech purely to try and damage it.

Except they are failing, as I have demonstrated.

Because we haven't given in to kneejerk Islamophobic nonsense.
As the white far right rises for other reasons we have to be sure to crack down on them as much as possible to show that we treat all extremism the same.

[Duque de Bragança]

https://artofuss.blog/2020/10/19/zineb-el-rhazoui%E2%80%89-%E2%80%89le-ccif-mene-un-djihad%E2%80%89judiciaire/

from someone who can know.

That's from Le Point for those wondering, a centre-right mainstream publication actually, but the original article is paywalled. Thanks.

[Tamas]

Without having read everything: there is zero comparison between yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre and drawing a caricature of a sacred person/animal/whatever.

It is impossible to build an even remotely free society around such limitations.

[Josquius]

Without having read everything: there is zero comparison between yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre and drawing a caricature of a sacred person/animal/whatever.

It is impossible to build an even remotely free society around such limitations.

And saying to kill people who draw caricatures?

[Tamas]

Without having read everything: there is zero comparison between yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre and drawing a caricature of a sacred person/animal/whatever.

It is impossible to build an even remotely free society around such limitations.

And saying to kill people who draw caricatures?

Actually, both yelling "fire" to cause mass panic and inciting people to kill others have the same desired effect: kill people, so yes they are pretty much the same.


Violence and inciting to it seems like an obvious line in the sand to draw even in a liberal society.

[grumbler]

I'm not even sure why anyone is entertaining Tyr's argument that under "complete natural freedom then I would be free to murder whoever I like."  That's not true at all, and is absurd on the face of it.  Everyone's freedoms are limited to the extent that they infringe on the freedoms of others, and one of the reasons we create societies is to adjudicate between competing liberties.

And the "shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" argument is just as bad; of course, if there is a fire, then one can warn others, even if the place is crowded.  It is only unprotected speech if it is knowingly false.  Knowingly false speech is not protected by free speech rights, except for the purposes of satire, openly fictional writing, and the like; speech that no reasonable person would conceive to be meant to be truthful.

Speech that is believed by the speaker to be true, but which might offend others, is still protected speech, unless it actively incites violence.

The attacks by Islamic extremists are about the social and political conditions in the countries from which they originate, not about Islam.  All that "clash of civilizations" shit has ben discredited for so long even its echoes should have died out by now in every decent mind.

[crazy canuck]

I am not following your argument.  Liberal political theory, as formulated John Stuart Mill, would say that natural freedom is restricted when it causes harm to others.  Most of our modern legal tradition is built on that concept, including our concept of freedom of expression.  No one has the freedom to falsely yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre etc.

That's exactly my argument, you followed it. 
Duque however was arguing that this is not the case and that freedom of expression must be absolute with zero buts. That yelling fire in a crowded theatre is fine.

I don't think that was Duque's point.  The But Brigade isn't suggesting free speech should be limited by the widely recognized limits imposed by law.  They are suggesting limits that you are, that one must be concerned about causing insult etc.

But f speech was never offensive we would not need a concept such as freedom of speech.  Simple put, freedom of speech exists to protect speech which is offensive.

[Josquius]

I don't think that was Duque's point.  The But Brigade isn't suggesting free speech should be limited by the widely recognized limits imposed by law.  They are suggesting limits that you are, that one must be concerned about causing insult etc.

But f speech was never offensive we would not need a concept such as freedom of speech.  Simple put, freedom of speech exists to protect speech which is offensive.

In other words everyone is in the "but brigade". Everyone puts a line for what is acceptable somewhere. There is no stark division between those who have an absolute belief in free speech and those who oppose this. Rather we all have different nuanced ideas of exactly where the line is.

Without having read everything: there is zero comparison between yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre and drawing a caricature of a sacred person/animal/whatever.

It is impossible to build an even remotely free society around such limitations.

And saying to kill people who draw caricatures?

Actually, both yelling "fire" to cause mass panic and inciting people to kill others have the same desired effect: kill people, so yes they are pretty much the same.


Violence and inciting to it seems like an obvious line in the sand to draw even in a liberal society.

OK. Agreed that directly saying kill this guy as he is offensive is definitely on the not OK side of the line.
But how far does this go?
Things don't suddenly go from saying explicitly to kill someone to saying nothing wrong. There's a lot of stuff gets said that is masked behind dog whistles and encourages crime without outright calling for a specific crime.

[Tamas]

Things don't suddenly go from saying explicitly to kill someone to saying nothing wrong. There's a lot of stuff gets said that is masked behind dog whistles and encourages crime without outright calling for a specific crime

That is true and a constant challenge for modern societies. There never will be no point where we can validly say "we have this nailed down exactly right for sure". However, self-censoring because otherwise you might be killed is absolutely not acceptable.

And the murder of somebody just because they showed a drawing is not the time to go "yes but on the other hand". 

[Eddie Teach]

Laws should ideally be black or white- this is legal, this is not. Banning "dog whistles" is arbitrary and leaves everyone unable to speak freely.

[Syt]

Laws should ideally be black or white- this is legal, this is not.

Unfortunately, life is more nuanced than that which is why many laws have what we call Ermessensspielraum, which the internet tells me translates as administrative discretion (which would be applicable for public administration) or latitude of judgment. When I was training for public administration, there was a lot of emphasis on exercising this discretion correctly and reasonably.

[Sheilbh]

Unfortunately, life is more nuanced than that which is why many laws have what we call Ermessensspielraum, which the internet tells me translates as administrative discretion (which would be applicable for public administration) or latitude of judgment. When I was training for public administration, there was a lot of emphasis on exercising this discretion correctly and reasonably.

And it's very common for prosecutors to have a degree of discretion. Often there will be a lot of guidance about the relevant considerations and also what the law is trying to achieve.

A black and white legal system would be either insanely complex or very unjust.

[Eddie Teach]

Not if you're stripping away discretion to prosecute offenses that would otherwise not exist.

[Valmy]

Unfortunately, life is more nuanced than that which is why many laws have what we call Ermessensspielraum, which the internet tells me translates as administrative discretion (which would be applicable for public administration) or latitude of judgment. When I was training for public administration, there was a lot of emphasis on exercising this discretion correctly and reasonably.

And it's very common for prosecutors to have a degree of discretion. Often there will be a lot of guidance about the relevant considerations and also what the law is trying to achieve.

A black and white legal system would be either insanely complex or very unjust.

He didn't say a black and white legal system. He said black and white LAWS. Vague arbitrary laws, where there actual meaning and legality of an action is not clear to the common people, would result in a simple and just legal system in your book?

No. The laws are black and white. It is their application where all the discretion and fuzziness comes from. If the laws were also vague and arbitrary then I think you would have a very unjust and complicated system indeed.