Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 271

Thread: Nationalism, immigration and racism in the EU

  1. #106

    Default

    Ed West put an amusing piece up recently that highlights the hypocrisy and spinelessness of our glorious leaders, vis-a-vis, those who "insult Islam", "The literal Islamophobia of the British media".

    His brief anecdote about the Republic of Ireland's response functions as a sort of multi-levelled ironic farce:

    Following the ["Danish Cartoons"] affair Ireland introduced blasphemy laws for the first time [!], with the Defamation Act making the publication or utterance of blasphemous matter a crime punishable by a €25,000 (£22,500) fine. In response secularist campaigners set up an Exhibition of Blasphemous Art at the Irish Museum of Contemporary Art (Imoca) in Dublin on Good Friday, 2010, against a law that they said ‘prevents intellectual debate’. The artists tested this theory with works such as ‘F— Christmas’, ‘Bible Gun’ and ‘Resur-erection’, which all satirised religious figures such as Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, although one particular 7th century figure was strangely absent. Not a single one mocked Islam, for the simple reason that long before the artists would be spending their lives under armed guard, the entire state machinery would have been forcing them to back down to spare Ireland a repeat of Denmark’s ordeal.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,238

    Default

    Given that the perpetrators are dead I do wonder what the clash of civilisations mob consider to be the appropriate response.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,238

    Default

    Declare war on Algeria presumably. Demonstrate Vigilant Resolve

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,238

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,238

    Default

    Spasms of virulent idiocy. Froth at the mouth. Firebomb a mosque?

  6. #111

    Default

    Who knows? None of those things seem very likely, though. I imagine that European authorities will want to make it harder for people to publish the sort of provocative, Muslim-baiting material found in Charlie Hebdo (and the media for the most part will be happy to oblige, since they don't want to be shot to pieces), and harder for Muslim extremists to publish the provocative, pro-jihadi type material that might result in more massacres of journalists, all the while ramping up the freedom and democracy rhetoric.

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,238

    Default

    I mean you vimothy not the governments of Europe lol

  8. #113

    Default

    I prefer ironic detachment to frothing at the mouth.

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,238

    Default

    You have no view? No opinion on what the appropriate response might be? How disappointing
    Last edited by luka; 19-01-2015 at 11:07 AM.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    17,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    Given that the perpetrators are dead I do wonder what the clash of civilisations mob consider to be the appropriate response.
    Well D-Cam apparently thinks the thing to do is to is to give police/security agencies unlimited surveillance powers with regard to social media, email, SMS and Let's Discover Electronics! home-made Morse code sets.

    Which I thought they already pretty much had anyway, but I guess not.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    8,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    His brief anecdote about the Republic of Ireland's response functions as a sort of multi-levelled ironic farce:
    Whilst Im not for a moment questioning the privileged status attacks on Islam have in liberal media in Europe, nor defending the atrocious blasphemy law, this is all a bit wonky.

    I don't think its fair to say the legislation was brought in as a result of Danish cartoons - the argument at the time was that there was a legislative hole after the previous law was deemed impractical by the supreme court, and some legislation is demanded by the constitution. Id also say there is a bit of internal politics here - the church being the subject of attacks on gay marriage, abortion, school patronage, historical institutional abuse - all under a conservative govt with a considerable right wing catholic rump - so this could have been seen to be 'giving something back' to the RCC.

    Regarding the blasphemy exhibition - Atheist Ireland aren't the most imaginative bunch. and I would say its most likely simply an attempt to (rightly) target offence at the dominant religion rather than fear of Muslim reaction.

    But yes, an indefensible farce, though not for the reasons West outlines.

  12. #117

    Default

    I'll defer to you on that. What I know of the internal politics of the Republic of Ireland could fit on a postage stamp -- a small postage stamp. But I don't see that wanting to offend Christian sensibilities and not wanting to offend Muslim sensibilities are mutually exclusive. The two normally work at lock step. That's why Charlie Hebdo is so problematic.

  13. #118

    Default

    And the "Danish Cartoons" before them.

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    17,038

    Default

    Speaking of Denmark, I recently learned via Facebook (thanks droid) that Jyllands-Posten had previously refused to run cartoons lampooning Jesus on the basis that "...readers will [not] enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact...they will provoke an outcry".

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/200...shing.politics

    Which is an interesting inversion of the situation vimothy describes in Ireland.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    8,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    But I don't see that wanting to offend Christian sensibilities and not wanting to offend Muslim sensibilities are mutually exclusive..
    And vice versa, in fact the right to offend Muslims is pretty much the only right being discussed here, a strange formalisation of propaganda really.

    A string of at least 69 arrests in France this week on the vague charge of “defending terrorism” (“l’apologie du terrorisme”) risks violating freedom of expression, Amnesty International said...

    http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/franc...cks-2015-01-16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •