Nationalism, immigration and racism in the EU

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
I just remembered about my UKIP premonition this evening its from 2008. i picked it up in the aether with my psychic anttenae

Gary Mutt is in the Star and Garter sitting in front of a pint of warm bitter, picking at his pack of pork scratchings. He gazes idly at the pictures behind the bar; Barbara Windsor, the Two Ronnies, Clive of India, Princess Diana, Bomber Harris, Paul Gascoigne, a grim faced Geoffery Boycott, Terry Butcher with bloody bandages wrapped tight around his head like a casualty of war, Cliff Richard in tennis whites. Icons of Englishness. He takes a sip of his bitter and feels proud.
"England will never die you horrible cunts" he bellows. The barman coughs softly and polishes a pint glass with a grubby beer towel.
A 14 inch television screen splutters on a wall bracket in a corner of the room. Only Albion City still has television. John Bull, in one of his more celebrated speeches, declared that if Englishness means anything it means hanging on to your traditions. The BBC broadcast John Bull's addressess to the nation and repeats of Coronation Street, Emerdale Farm, old episodes of The Goodies, Hale and Pace and classic sitcoms such as Are You Being Served, Upstairs, Downstairs, Love Thy Neighbour and Men Behaving Badly.
The television screen is showing footage of the 1966 world cup final.
Gary mouths the words alongside the commentator, words seared onto the heart of every true Englishman
"they think it's all over"
he rises to his feet, mimes kicking a football into the corner of the net
"IT IS NOW YOU FUCKING KRAUTY CUNTS"
raises his arms aloft in triumph and embarks in a victory lap around the pub, arms spread outwards in imitation of a Spitfire flying over the Channel.
"you can take away our red phone boxes, you can decomission our double-decker buses and auction off our manor houses but youll never take our pride
In-Ger-Lund, In-Ger-Lund, In-Ger-Lund
In-Ger-Lund, In-Ger-Lund, In-Ger-Lund
In-Ger-Lund, In-Ger-Lund, In-Ger-Lund
In-Ger-Lund, IN--GER--LUUND"
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
I don't think the killers are/were particularly concerned about good race relations in France (quite the opposite, probably).

The whole reaction to such a horrific tragedy (and one as equally horrific as any act of terrorism, no more or no less) is so depressingly predictable, from the explosion of racism from every corner, to repainting the dubious cartoons Charlie Hebdo published as heroic free speech, rather than a game of brinksmanship that went tragically wrong. What were they saying that was so important that it was worth getting killed for, ffs (and they knew that was a possibility from previous events)?
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
(and they knew that was a possibility from previous events)
Hmm. I've seen a number of responses that focus on the inevitability, sooner or later, of some sort of violent repercussion to this sort of satire. Which may be factually true, of course, but there's a danger here of making it sound like "Well if you put your hand in a fire, what do you expect to happen?". By concentrating on the "inevitable" nature of an attack like this, you in a sense exculpate the culprits. The moral onus is shifted to non-Muslims not to give offence, rather than on Islamists not to react with murder.

It is also, in an very subtle, bien-pensant kind of way, racist, because it denigrates the moral agency of Muslims.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Ugh. Yes and no.

The killers weren't concerned with race relations in France, if they are who they seem to be, they were advancing their own theocratic war ideology.

What was so important that the journalists should get killed for? The right to say what the fuck they like without being killed for it. As far as I know, nobody has yet even tried to assassinate David Irving.

This is not a "tragedy" like a small child being run over on a street.

To add more fuel to the fire here, and before this happened, some of us were impressed with Sisi last week, after his amazing speech on New Years Day and his following visit to a Coptic Church.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Hmm. I've seen a number of responses that focus on the inevitability, sooner or later, of some sort of violent repercussion to this sort of satire. Which may be factually true, of course, but there's a danger here of making it sound like "Well if you put your hand in a fire, what do you expect to happen?". By concentrating on the "inevitable" nature of an attack like this, you in a sense exculpate the culprits. The moral onus is shifted to non-Muslims not to give offence, rather than on Islamists not to react with murder.

It is also, in an very subtle, bien-pensant kind of way, racist, because it denigrates the moral agency of Muslims.
Yes, there is that danger, true. But there's an opposite danger of glorifying recklessly provocative behaviour. Just as any of us should be able to say anything offensive to anyone if we like, but we choose my moments wisely.

Oh for goodness' sake! :rolleyes: How does it say anything at all about Muslims? The same would be true of further baiting anyone who had previously shown violent intent towards you. It denigrates the moral agency of psychos.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Ugh. Yes and no.

The killers weren't concerned with race relations in France, if they are who they seem to be, they were advancing their own theocratic war ideology.

What was so important that the journalists should get killed for? The right to say what the fuck they like without being killed for it. As far as I know, nobody has yet even tried to assassinate David Irving.

This is not a "tragedy" like a small child being run over on a street.

To add more fuel to the fire here, and before this happened, some of us were impressed with Sisi last week, after his amazing speech on New Years Day and his following visit to a Coptic Church.
The second point was the point I was trying to make in seemingly missing Tea's sarcasm.

"What was so important that the journalists should get killed for? The right to say what the fuck they like without being killed for it." Only if what you have to say is important. Yes, no-one should ever get killed for saying anything; no, some things are not worth risking being killed over. The guys at Charlie Hebdo were killed over some playground slurs, basically, not over some noble defence of human rights.

Over and out on this conversation anyways. I don't think I'm saying anything especially contentious.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
The guys at Charlie Hebdo were killed over some playground slurs, basically, not over some noble defence of human rights.
Bollocks, the principle is absolute or it is nothing.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Yes, there is that danger, true. But there's an opposite danger of glorifying recklessly provocative behaviour. Just as any of us should be able to say anything offensive to anyone if we like, but we choose my moments wisely.
To be clear, I think there's nothing clever or really worthwhile in any way at this point about publishing cartoons of Mohamed drinking a Bud with his finger up his arse, or whatever. And it's only "brave" in the very limited sense that kicking a wolf in the bollocks is "brave": just ballsy and gratuitously reckless. What I think tempts a certain kind of soi-disant edgy or badass person - who probably does not, in all honesty, harbour a burning hatred of all Muslims - to engage in this kind of Islam-baiting "satire" is the very fact that in liberal secular democracies, Islam is the only ideology, and Muslims the only demographic, that cannot be insulted or mocked with more or less guaranteed impunity. By which I don't mean impunity from criticism, censure or even prosecution, but from being stabbed, shot or blown up.

Oh for goodness' sake! :rolleyes: How does it say anything at all about Muslims? The same would be true of further baiting anyone who had previously shown violent intent towards you. It denigrates the moral agency of psychos.
Sigh, all right then, if I have to spell it out: some Muslims. But Muslims nonetheless. As I've said above, what other cultural or ideological group is so quick to react with violence to a perceived slight? Christians may have protested at Jerry Springer but he doesn't live in daily fear of assassination as Rushdie does, does he?

My point was that taking the line that murder as a repercussion for "blasphemy" is a given, a fact of life, denigrates the moral agency of a group of people by accepting that they can't be expected to know any better.
 
Last edited:

droid

Beast of Burden
Not true. Calls to abolish the monarchy are illegal. French rappers get prosecuted for their lyrics. Writers get fired from magazines for perceived anti-semitism. Activists get arrested and 'pre-bailed' for facebook posts about protests.

Free speech is censured constantly, difference is we are not 'je suis Irving'.
 

you

Well-known member
Some interesting clicks here re Houellebecq's appearance on Hebdo in context of the content of his latest novel; Soumission.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/09/soumission-michel-houellebecq-review-charlie-hebdo

"Some in France have already complained that the novel fans right-wing fears of the Muslim population, but that is to miss Houellebecq’s deeply mischievous point. Islamists and anti-immigration demagogues, the novel gleefully points out, really ought to be on the same side, because they share a suspicion of pluralist liberalism and a desire to return to “traditional” or pre-feminist values, where a woman submits to her husband – just as “Islam” means that a Muslim submits to God."

also, although I disagree with any use of the word evil (for obvious reasons) - Self has some good points amongst the hand-wringing here:
http://www.channel4.com/news/will-self-martin-rowson-cartoon-charlie-hebdo-satire-video
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Not true. Calls to abolish the monarchy are illegal. French rappers get prosecuted for their lyrics. Writers get fired from magazines for perceived anti-semitism. Activists get arrested and 'pre-bailed' for facebook posts about protests.

Free speech is censured constantly, difference is we are not 'je suis Irving'.
Did you even bother to read my whole post? I specifically defined "impunity" as "impunity from murder attempts" - not state censure, prosecution or whatever.
 

droid

Beast of Burden
Yes, so you did. Sorry.

But still also not true. ETA, for example have made numerous assassination attempts against journalists. Greek journalists have been killed by ultra left extremists. Alan Berg shot dead by white power nuts. IRA killed quite a few too IIRC. The list goes on.

So Islam is not the only anything. In the minority probably. The problem is that fanatics dont like being criticised or seeing their symbols attacked.
 

droid

Beast of Burden
And personally, I consider the fact that you can be fired, jailed, prosecuted & ASBO'd by the state for attending (or even planning) a protest is far more worrying and damaging to society than the minuscule chance of being a potential victim of a tiny minority of murdering fanatics.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
OK, fine, clearly Islamism does not have a monopoly on the use of political terror. But then I never said it did.

None of the types of terrorism you've mentioned is exactly analogous to what I'm talking about. For instance, when the IRA was carrying out political assassinations in the '70s and '80s its targets were generally high-profile members of the British establishment (MPs, royals) or symbols of state power (police stations, army barracks). Whereas Charlie Hebdo is clearly no more a part of the French establishment than Private Eye is of the British. And in any case, I'm talking about the present day, and with the exception of a couple of atrocities committed against members of the general public, the IRA has been virtually inactive the last 20-odd years.

As far as white far-right or Christian fundamentalist terror goes, the analogy to the CH killings (or the Jyllands-Posten murders and attempted murders, Theo van Gogh's murder, Hirsi Ali's death threats, the Rushdie fatwa, the scores of people killed in protests at The Innocence of Muslims...) would be someone trying to kill the remaining Monty Python team, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Jerry Springer, anyone involved in the making of Father Ted, Andres Serrano, Chris Ofili...

Anders Breivik committed his outrage because he thought socialists were betraying his beloved Christian Norway to Islam, not because of a perceived blasphemy by an artist/humorist/writer. Not that that makes it any less bad, if I have to spell that out - but it is a different phenomenon.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
And personally, I consider the fact that you can be fired, jailed, prosecuted & ASBO'd by the state for attending (or even planning) a protest is far more worrying and damaging to society than the minuscule chance of being a potential victim of a tiny minority of murdering fanatics.
Pure whataboutery. Abuses of state power are bad and are to be resisted as well - so what? I'd rather be able to exercise my right to free speech without having to worry about being incarcerated by the state or murdered by ultra-reactionary religious shitheads. It's not compulsory to side with one of two antagonistic evils.
 
Top