1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Priest murdered, hostages taken during mass at French church

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by abradley, Jul 26, 2016.

  1. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    19,063
    So if the objection isn't to foreign nationals donating to religious institutions (which my example was), why did you include it in your "draft law"?
    If the objection is to hate speech, why bother with the whole "foreign funding" stuff and just jump to charging the person for hate speech?

    Again, if the issue is about the preachers who violate hate speech laws, charge them with hate speech. If a person hasn't broken any laws then infringing upon their rights -especially their free speech and free association rights- is a pretty gross violation of the cornerstones of Western political thought. It boils down to "we don't like what you are saying so we are going to harass and single you out". I don't know about you, but I definitely am getting whiffs of the Soviet Union in that one. The Soviet Union accomplished many impressive things, but their treatment of ideological minorities is not one of the things they had a great record on.
     
  2. kramerfan86

    kramerfan86 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,572
    How in the world does a known ISIS sympathizer who tried to get into Syria twice get a slap on the wrist year in prison then get unleashed in society again?? Jesus

    Forget this talk about "illegalizing IS sympathizing", what is the point when people taking it beyond sympathizing get a whopping year in prison penalty?
     
  3. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    54,397
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    I don't think merely 'sympathising' should automatically have a penalty, cause teens tend to be into all sorts of bad ideas. So imo the standard law about crime is enough there as well.
    If one has known ties to criminal groups, again the law covers that well enough already.
     
  4. Takhisis

    Takhisis is it fall yet

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    43,723
    Location:
    up yours!
    Yeap, and there already is legislation for hate speech in place.
     
  5. Gucumatz

    Gucumatz JS, secretly Rod Serling

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,181
    Well if such sympathy was made illegal, then that surveillance and scrutiny would be put a step up - potentially jailing individuals who are espousing rhetoric that they plan on committing violent acts would be the next step.

    If someone on facebook posts they would like to shoot up an event, those individuals can be arrested currently in the US. Individuals can be and are arrested for such actions already. If potential terrorists espouse an ideology that specifically calls for violence - like ISIS does, then those most likely about to act on that ideology could be viewed in the same way - a step above distant surveillance which some agencies can not monitor as effectively as ours for instance.
     
  6. Phrossack

    Phrossack Armored Fish and Armored Men

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,679
    That's fair. ISIS is the most evil terrorist organization in the world right now, one which revels in inspiring people to commit mass murders of innocent civilians again and again and again. It's also an enemy of every country on Earth, even Muslim theocracies; ISIS doctrine holds that all Muslims have a duty to obey the Caliph and anyone else claiming authority is a usurper who must be killed.

    So yeah, openly supporting an enemy group that does little besides murdering and enslaving people is a pretty huge red flag.
     
  7. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    54,397
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Yes, Isis is the new over-fiend, although they still are dwarfed in actual deaths caused by the US or even France and Britain. I am not seeing people get arrested for still supporting the invasion of Iraq which directly led to Isis rising in power, including a candidate for Potus who signed for that invasion. Must be a US thing, to believe that more violence and fear solves all :)
     
  8. Janskey

    Janskey Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    352
    Location:
    Finland
  9. classical_hero

    classical_hero In whom I trust

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    33,255
    Location:
    Perth,Western Australia
    Why do we need hate speech laws, when there are laws against violent speech already?
     
  10. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,077
    Location:
    In orbit
    Let's see.

    Number of mass suicide bombing before 2004 in France: 0.
    Number of mass suicide bombings since 2004 in France: 1.

    By God, that's a 100 % increase!

    I don't know. 1 year in prison for 'sympathizing' isn't enough? Perhaps it should be 10 years?
     
  11. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    19,977
    So do you have a problem with criminalizing Nazism in Germany? I'm assuming not. So what's wrong with criminalizing Isis sympathizing, or salafism for that matter?

    Nobody thinks this would magically solve all problems of terrorism or Muslim integration into France, but it would make it a whole lot easier to prosecute Islamic radicals before they go out killing people, and also to take care of preachers before they do too much damage.

    And nobody is talking of criminalizing thought, but only speech. A lot of speech is already criminalized in France, and those rules are actually enforced all the time. You can get in serious trouble in France for saying stuff way more moderate than what we hear from Trump on a daily basis. But Salafists and radical Muslims in general are free to spew their crap. Instead of "banning salafism", lawmakers could criminalize a lot of salafist speech, and use the same tools which are already used all the time to prosecute racists, for instance.

    There is a problem with radical Islam in France. There is no problem with Catholicism. When there was, there were all sorts of measures specifically targeting the Church to restrict its power in France. Now we need specific measures against Islam (not all Islam, but some branches of it).

    Finally, I don't think what I "proposed" has any chance of being enacted. You should appreciate that in this forum all the time we make proposals that we know will never see the light of day. Your own opinions on pretty much everything are fringe and extreme and will not be put in practice in one million years, but you still express them.

    I am very pessimistic on the future of France, which is a country I hold very dear.

    Always this.

    Do you really think WW2 or the Cold War were fought with full respect to "liberal values"?? For crying out loud! US citizens were spied on, put on surveillance due to their ethnicity, sometimes even sent to detention camps. In the UK fascist sympathizers were round up and tried for treason. During the Cold War, to deal with the communist 5th column, there were black lists, purges, more spying on private citizens. The US financed dirty wars throughout the world to fight the Bolsheviks, with absolutely zero regard for "liberal values".

    The point being that everything that is being proposed against Isis is nothing compared to the "deviations from liberal values" that the "Western world" has already taken so many times in the past. The notion that Nazism and Communism were defeated while the US wore white gloves is a laughable mythology. The West always fought, and often fought dirty, to defend itself.

    I don't think anyone was suggesting making Islam unlawful, as that would be plain ridiculous. I suggested making some particularly hateful versions of Islam unlawful.

    Also, nobody said anything about thought crimes, but about hate speech. A lot of speech is already criminalized in France. Why not criminalize salafist speech?

    That's not a 100% increase, it's an infinite% increase, and most terrorist attacks in France nowadays are not bombings.

    And 1 years for actively trying to join an organization conducting genocide is not enough, IMO (and obviously was not enough for this guy who proceeded to behead a priest. And I doubt he actually stayed in prison for more than a couple months, if at all).
     
  12. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,716
    Location:
    Scotland
    Well, it's like they say, sometimes you've got to destroy the village to save it.

    What does "stopping Islamism" mean, though? Is criminaliastion really the only thing that governments can do to dissuade European Muslims from supporting groups like ISIS?

    If so, then perhaps ISIS has a point about the decadence and moral vacuity of Europe.


    The first seems pretty clearly contrary to the principles of religious liberty. The purpose of state recognition of religious organisations is to offer legal protection and regulate things like tax-exempt status, not to dictate who can say what; in France, if anywhere, religious conviction is a private matter. Threatening to withdraw recognition from religious organisations which say the wrong is a perversion of the state's authority, because it represents the manipulation of laws intended to preserve the independence of the church from the state to subordinate the church to the state.

    It would also ineffective, because you're not in any way preventing these organisations from operating, because in France the consequences of the state withdrawing recognition is only the loss of tax-exempt status. You might constrain the activities of these groups, but it's hardly going to put a stop to them, and in the process, you'd probably just entrench their sense of persecution.

    On top of everything else, it would inconvenience other denominations by making it difficult for them to invite guest-preachers from oversees; for example, the Pope, the Dalai Lama or the Chief Rabbi of Israel would be prohibited from preaching in France without state permission, and while I'm sure this permission will be easily obtained, the notion that practicing their religion should be dependent on the state's approval of the content of the religion, and surely the right to hear the words of such an esteemed figure can be considered part of religious practice, is hardly going to impress practitioners.

    The second is going to be a problem for any church that receives large parts of its funding from outside of France, and that happens to include the Catholic Church, which is by far the largest and most political influential religious organisation in France. It would also cause for problems for Protestant and Jewish denominations, not to mention non-Salafist Muslims, that make use of funds from larger sister-communities in other countries. Most foreign donations to religious organisations are going to be perfectly innocent and prohibiting innocent behaviour because it might be used for nefarious ends is the very soul of illiberalism.

    And again, this wouldn't necessarily be very effective, because it would simply require that funds are transferred to citizens or to local charitable organisations, before being in turn transferred to the mosques. There may be ways to prohibit this, but in doing so, but again, it's hard to see how this would be done without the state either over-stepping its bounds with regards to religious liberty by targeting certain denominations specifically, or make legislation so broad as to interfere with the activities of innocent religious and charitable organisations.

    Both rules would be illiberal, ineffective and unpopular; not exactly war-winners.

    German and Austrian law doesn't actually criminalise Nazism, it criminalises the NSDAP and its symbolism. It's perfectly legal to be a Nazi, to express support for the Third Reich, and to mach around the place hollering to this effect, you just have to be careful of the precise flags and slogans you employ. There are also certain prohibitions on justifying or denying the Holocaust, but again, anyway halfway creative mind can simply side-step that topic in public.

    Perhaps even this runs to the illiberal- I certainly don't think it would fly anywhere outside of Germany and Austria, which of course have a unique relationship with the Nazi legacy- but at any rate, they're realistic enough not to imagine that you can somehow ban "being a Nazi".

    (The German legislation which prohibits use of the Nazi flag also prohibits use of ISIS flags, incidentally.)

    Wouldn't that simply be a case of enforcing existing legislation, then, rather than introducing a new slate of "anti-Salafist" legislation? Otherwise, you're introducing legislation which specifically targets certain denominations, which as Ajidica pointed out can only end with the French being dragged in front of the European Court of Justice and told to knock it off, or laws so general as to offend all religious practitioners, and quite probably most of the serious secularists.

    Fair point, but at least my wacky schemes are internally consistent, kinda, ish. What your proposing is grossly illiberal, and you're proposing it in defence of liberal democracy. That's self-defeating, surely?

    What was he actually convicted of? In a liberal society, you can only be convicted for crimes that the state can prove you committed, attempted to commit or intended to commit. If all that could be proven was that he sympathised with ISIS and intended to travel to Syria, that's all he can be convicted of, even if the implications of that are screamingly obvious.
     
  13. Cheetah

    Cheetah Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,770
    Location:
    the relative oasis of CFC
    Can we ban Islamism specifically then, just like NSDAP is banned in Germany? Islamism being to advocate for pushing Islamic rules into politics.

    And any pushback is seen as persecution, so I'm not sure how that matters.
     
  14. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,716
    Location:
    Scotland
    The NSDAP is a specific organisation. Germany doesn't even ban "Nazism", in so many words, let alone "Nationalism", which would be the equivalent of banning something so broad as "Islamism". You'd have to ban specific organisations, which would mean establishing that they're encouraging terrorist activity- and the French government has already started doing that.

    To zealots, yes, but not to those on the fence. When the pious wail because they're held to the same standards as everyone else, they look ridiculous, but if they're genuinely being singled out for repression, even just lightly, their complaints have a core of truth, and that carries weight with the unconvinced sympathiser.
     
  15. Atticus

    Atticus Chieftain Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,666
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    The ones pushing islamic rules into politics aren't the problem.* It's the ones who go around killing people. If they would set up a political party to further their agenda instead of killing, that would be a solution to the problem.


    *(Don't infer that I wouldn't oppose most of those rules)
     
  16. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,192
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    I remember quite clearly half these forums wailing about "oppression" when France simply confirmed that scarf should be banned from school, so as much as I'd like to agree with you, facts clearly show the opposite.
     
  17. Terxpahseyton

    Terxpahseyton How much Parmesan to put on your umbrella?

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,094
    Mind blown.
     
  18. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,716
    Location:
    Scotland
    A vague recollection is not a "fact".
     
  19. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,657
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Well I don't consider suicide bombing to be "never justified." Suicide bombing is just a tactic. It can easily be deployed in the service of a cause any of us would view as good.

    Yes. The other question, of course, is how long it takes before the state begins to 'abuse' this power (I put that in quotes because imo even having it is automatically an abuse, but I suppose not everyone will agree).
     
  20. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,192
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    Well you can play the dishonesty game and put your fingers in your ears, but it won't change what actually happened.
     

Share This Page