Sabine Grant

ARROWMAN : As a native from France I attempted to explain that the notion of "muslim" is mixed with the notion of race in my country. So if you wish to continue to simplify the whole issue by asking " since then muslim is a race" and maintain that it is a matter of freedom of speech, there is not much hope that you will accept arguments and possibly revise your perception of what is really happening.

I think it is unreasonable on your part to deny what was presented to you and evaluate that we are drifting off the subject.

On the other hand I do not agree that France has a limited freedom of speech. People may be quick to react and resort to legal actions when challenged in their ideology, but France is reputated to have offered political exile to all kinds of individuals and allowed them to express the very speech or art they were not allowed to express in their own land.

TOTO : Even though we are now assimilated economicaly and financialy under the European Community, we have kept our idealogical and political individuality. Europe has a variety of regimes from republics to monarchies. Each invidual history has determined each mentality. As you travel and live for long periods of times in various European countries, what may be restrictive as freedom of speech in one does not apply to another. I think it is prudent to not generalize.

Again I believe that the issue at hand that Arrowman presented and based on my personal experience and observation of the means and ways of my culture is indeed a matter of racism not religion.

Arrowman

Sabine:

Michel Houellebecq has made a number of statements, in interviews and in his novels, of his opinion that Islam is, not to oversimplify, "the dumbest religion". He has been taken to court by Muslim groups who accuse him of "making a racial insult" and "inciting religious hatred".

Rushdie in his column argues that this is an example of an unreasonable constraint on freedom of thought and speech; and that That point may be argued independent of any question of race - is it OK for a group of people to take someone to court for calling their beliefs "dumb"? This is, imho, the key question here (and I take Rushdie's side on this) and what should be (imho) the key point of discussion on this thread.

Now to the question of race:

It is my contention that in situations such as this, people are very quick to "play the race card" to bolster their case; because most people these days are sensitive to accusations of "racism" or "racial intolerance". Whether or not race (as opposed to religion, or political viewpoint) is the actual issue. And of course whether or not the issue relates to mere comment / criticism, as opposed to "inciting hatred".

As Toto puts it above There you go, Toto - you've been quoted next to Rushdie. Cool, eh?

Sabine, you gave an interesting explanation of the relationship between race and religion in France. Thank you. But while that may explain the attitude or perceptions of some people, that does not make those perceptions accurate. Islam is a religion - not a race. And no matter how strong the correlation may be between a race and a religion in any given country, criticism of a religion is not criticism of a race.

To argue otherwise is to argue that criticism of Christianity by a non-white Australian is an implicit criticism of Caucasians, because of the overwhelming correlation between that race and that religion here.

That is why I posted as I did - it is not my place to direct discussion, but I was hoping to elicit more discussion on the subject of religious criticism and freedom of speech. I do not "deny what was presented" - I accept it, in the absence of an equally informed rebuttal, but I maintain that, as I said above, the correlation between Islam and a particular race in France does not make Islam a race, nor does it make criticism of Islam a racial criticism.

I don't think I can be accused of "simplifying the issue" - in particular, I did not initially pose the question "since when is Muslim a race" and I have since tried to redirect discussion away from that question. I assure that there is every chance that I will "accept arguments and possibly revise your perception of what is really happening" (thank you for the implied insult to my powers of critical, objective thinking). That does not mean that I have to accept local experience as global reality.

Edited to add: Ask yourself this - If Houellebecq were an Arab, would his criticism of Islam still be "racial"?

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Sabine Grant

ARROWMAN: I agree with you that the racial card is used too often as a defense by people who do not take criticism too well.

Of course islam is a religion not a race.Unfortunatly in France the perception is different and the mentality will gravitate around ignorance. An Islamic indonesian in France will be welcome in the same home where an islamic arab will be criticized. The poor guy happens to be an arab. My grandfather often reffered to any arab he would pass on the street as a "musulman" when the same arab might not have been a muslim. I think we both understand now where the "race" idea came from in the debate.

Here is my opinion on what can be considered restrictive or acceptable when it comes to upholding the freedom of expression on any matter including the one you brought up.

That somehow we need to draw the line between a statement which incites others to hate crimes mentality and a statement of opinion. That we are accountable for what we express if we incite anyone to commit a crime against another person.

What would have been the course of history if anyone had intercepted a manuscript written in jail which contains definitions and terms of a "final solution"? Granted pan germanism had already planted the seeds for national socialism and anti semitism was increasing throughout Europe, the fact is that the written expression of the means and justifications to exterminate a race became a popular idea. From one mind it expanded to a nation.

So do I consider the French author's comments dangerous? taken in the context of France, I would have some concerns that it can feed the already anti-arab-muslim mentality in the country and contribute to the perpetuation of criminal acts against arabs-muslims. Islam is definitly not popular those days!

I cannot evaluate if the Arabe Ligue has the same concern I have or if they are being touchy about the quoted comments.

In my sense that is the only justification to taking one to court for expressing an opinion which concerns a religion...to prevent the propaganda of an ideology which incites clearly someone to hate crimes onto a particular group or individual.When Jerry Falwell expresses murderous thoughts against homosexuals, I believe he is as accountable as the nut who will then apply a death sentence to a gay person (keep in mind I am a christian butI uphold the sanctity of life and the right for any person to exist until natural death occurs).

Because of the terrorists actions of islamic extremist groups, people have developed throughout the world a sense of judgement of Islam( ironical the christian who defends islam!). There is in my opinion an anti islamic trend in the "civilized world". Comments that inflame the already existing notion that Islam is "really bad news" may be said at the wrong time. Right time to sell many books but not contributing to educating masses so they can differenciate between fanatic actions and a peaceful muslim who will be shot for being a "rag head".

I hope I made my opinion clear. I realize that to Americans the freedom of expression is very precious. But I am also concerned about the extremes. And how any government can force their ideology thru legislation. Education is the solution to prevent both. Allowing young minds who will make the next voting generation to be exposed to all kinds of cultures and understand all the differences and accept them.

Arrowman

Sabine: Thanks for your response. I don't think we disagree on anything substantial here - at least, nothing I care to take further at this stage. Thanks for the discussion.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Toto

<a href="http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,816923,00.html" target="_blank">Houellebecq acquitted of insulting Islam </a>

Sabine Grant

Arrowman : I equaly enjoyed the discussion. A bientot!

Arrowman

Woo-hoo! Thanks for the update, Toto. A victory for rational thought.

Toto

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/23/international/europe/23PARI.html" target="_blank">another article</a> (NY Times requires free registration)

More insults to Islam: