![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
airiefairie.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsCould a piece of fiction cause a hatred so strong that would lead to mass killings? The bloody attack in Paris leaving scores of dead innocents will probably add even more dramatism to the vision of one Michel Houellebecq of France as a possible future Islamic republic...
The attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that became infamous for its critical positions against Islam and the Muhammad cartoons from previous years (and whose latest cover was directly inspired by Houellebecq's writings), could also have a connection to Houellebecq's new book, where he describes a fictitious scenario of the Islamisation of France.
France, the year 2022. The crescent shines over Paris, and the green flag of Islam floats atop the Elysee Palace. France has just elected its first Muslim president, Mohammed ben Abbes. The new head of state decides to abolish the secular republic, and build an Islamic theocratic state, where polygamy is legalised, and men have all the power. Women are required to wear burqas and have no right to work or study, the Sorbonne is turned into an Islamic university, all professors there being obliged to accept Islam.
Just a fictional story or a peek into the future? The author seems to genuinely believe that such a far-fetched scenario is actually possible, even if it does not happen so soon as his book claims.
Some years ago, the world-famous writer got the high French literary award Goncourt, and the critics have never stopped calling him a highly controversial, even scandalous author ever since. His brand new book Submission only comes to confirm that. It bears an explosive message, which sounds as if it is taken directly from the rhetoric of the far-right Front National, which is now being echoed in Germany as well: "the West is threatened with Islamisation".
The French League against Racism and Anti-Semitism has warned that Houellebecq is playing with people's collective fears. They have called his books "the greatest present that Marine Le Pen could have received". What they mean is the political intrigue in the book: in order to stop FN and Le Pen from taking over the country, the mainstream leftist and centre-right parties collude to deny her the presidency in favour of the Muslim candidate, thus taking the responsibility for what happens afterwards. His critics believe that Houellebecq is settling scores with real French politicians and an entire political caste which in his view has failed to unite society.
French president Francois Hollande has distanced himself from Houellebecq. He believes his books are not some sort of literature bravery, but merely a regurgitation of old populist cliches. Because there have always been people who have praised the decadent and retrograde, and have dwelt in a permanent sense of hopeless pessimism. Houellebecq himself denies the accusation that he is aiming to fuel people's prejudices. The bad boy of French literature does not seem to believe that he merely plays the role of a professional provocateur. He is convinced that Marine Le Pen would not draw any benefits from his books, since she has been doing quite well in recent times, anyway.
Houellebecq's book, as well as in previous cases, has caused very polarised reactions. Some of the critics call it daring, funny, even a sarcastic satire of today's French society. Others call it an Islamophobic lampoon, solely designed to advocate the ideas of the far-right. The philosopher Malek Chebel says that Houellebecq uses his talent to fuel the fears of Islam, and exactly because he is a great writer, he should have more responsibility in that respect.
His books will probably affect the way the French people perceive the Islamic community in their country, along with yesterday's dreadful attack of course. There is a sense among the Muslim community that they are being branded and stigmatised, and used as a scapegoat for all of France's troubles. The economic crisis could naturally cause a crisis of values, even a moral crisis. And some demagogues in politics would be sure to enjoy taking benefit of this in order to sow fear and have political gains as a result. Unfortunately, Houellebecq's books tend to ultimately drive the point in the same direction.
Whether Submission is a painful call against Islam, or merely a social and political snapshot of the French society, Houellebecq himself will not tell. The protagonist in his latest book, a man called Francois, also finds it hard to define himself. He acknowledges that Islam has had both an attractive and repulsive effect on him, which can be quite confusing for the reader as well. This relativism affects both the character and the author, who has said that he neither supports nor rejects his protagonist, but would rather allow the reader to decide for themselves. Let us hope that he will not be massacred by some extremist lunatic in response to his writings, because these are points to be made and openly discussed, as opposed to being tackled with machine-guns and/or self-censorship.
Update: The much dreaded exchange of violence may have already begun.
The attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that became infamous for its critical positions against Islam and the Muhammad cartoons from previous years (and whose latest cover was directly inspired by Houellebecq's writings), could also have a connection to Houellebecq's new book, where he describes a fictitious scenario of the Islamisation of France.
France, the year 2022. The crescent shines over Paris, and the green flag of Islam floats atop the Elysee Palace. France has just elected its first Muslim president, Mohammed ben Abbes. The new head of state decides to abolish the secular republic, and build an Islamic theocratic state, where polygamy is legalised, and men have all the power. Women are required to wear burqas and have no right to work or study, the Sorbonne is turned into an Islamic university, all professors there being obliged to accept Islam.
Just a fictional story or a peek into the future? The author seems to genuinely believe that such a far-fetched scenario is actually possible, even if it does not happen so soon as his book claims.
Some years ago, the world-famous writer got the high French literary award Goncourt, and the critics have never stopped calling him a highly controversial, even scandalous author ever since. His brand new book Submission only comes to confirm that. It bears an explosive message, which sounds as if it is taken directly from the rhetoric of the far-right Front National, which is now being echoed in Germany as well: "the West is threatened with Islamisation".
The French League against Racism and Anti-Semitism has warned that Houellebecq is playing with people's collective fears. They have called his books "the greatest present that Marine Le Pen could have received". What they mean is the political intrigue in the book: in order to stop FN and Le Pen from taking over the country, the mainstream leftist and centre-right parties collude to deny her the presidency in favour of the Muslim candidate, thus taking the responsibility for what happens afterwards. His critics believe that Houellebecq is settling scores with real French politicians and an entire political caste which in his view has failed to unite society.
French president Francois Hollande has distanced himself from Houellebecq. He believes his books are not some sort of literature bravery, but merely a regurgitation of old populist cliches. Because there have always been people who have praised the decadent and retrograde, and have dwelt in a permanent sense of hopeless pessimism. Houellebecq himself denies the accusation that he is aiming to fuel people's prejudices. The bad boy of French literature does not seem to believe that he merely plays the role of a professional provocateur. He is convinced that Marine Le Pen would not draw any benefits from his books, since she has been doing quite well in recent times, anyway.
Houellebecq's book, as well as in previous cases, has caused very polarised reactions. Some of the critics call it daring, funny, even a sarcastic satire of today's French society. Others call it an Islamophobic lampoon, solely designed to advocate the ideas of the far-right. The philosopher Malek Chebel says that Houellebecq uses his talent to fuel the fears of Islam, and exactly because he is a great writer, he should have more responsibility in that respect.
His books will probably affect the way the French people perceive the Islamic community in their country, along with yesterday's dreadful attack of course. There is a sense among the Muslim community that they are being branded and stigmatised, and used as a scapegoat for all of France's troubles. The economic crisis could naturally cause a crisis of values, even a moral crisis. And some demagogues in politics would be sure to enjoy taking benefit of this in order to sow fear and have political gains as a result. Unfortunately, Houellebecq's books tend to ultimately drive the point in the same direction.
Whether Submission is a painful call against Islam, or merely a social and political snapshot of the French society, Houellebecq himself will not tell. The protagonist in his latest book, a man called Francois, also finds it hard to define himself. He acknowledges that Islam has had both an attractive and repulsive effect on him, which can be quite confusing for the reader as well. This relativism affects both the character and the author, who has said that he neither supports nor rejects his protagonist, but would rather allow the reader to decide for themselves. Let us hope that he will not be massacred by some extremist lunatic in response to his writings, because these are points to be made and openly discussed, as opposed to being tackled with machine-guns and/or self-censorship.
Update: The much dreaded exchange of violence may have already begun.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/15 21:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/15 21:34 (UTC)The question is relatively simple.
(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 02:04 (UTC)Hitchens: Let's do a brief thought experiment. I tell you the following: On New Year's Eve, a man in his mid-seventies is having his granddaughter over for a sleep-over, his five-year old granddaughter. He is attacked in his own home by an axe-wielding maniac with homicidal intent. Your mammalian reaction, your reaction as a primate, is one of revulsion. I'm trusting you on this. [Laughs.]
MJT: Oh, yes. You are correct.
Hitchens: Then you pick up yesterday's Guardian, one of the most liberal newspapers in the Western world, and there's a long article that says, ah, that picture, that moral picture, that instinct to protect the old and the young doesn't apply in this case. The man asked for it...
There are some things that warrant "hoisting the black flag" but being "offended" is not one of them. The late Stéphane Charbonnier may have been an asshole but being an asshole is not a crime nor should it be.
The choice between asshole cartoonists and people who think that murder is okay so long as it's done to protect the reputation of a seventh century Arabian man is an easy choice.
(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 06:57 (UTC)But thanks for doing all these desperate attempts to side-step the question, I guess.
(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 07:58 (UTC)Given the choice between asshole cartoonists and people who think that being offended makes murder okay, I am on the side Asshole cartoonists because "being offensive" doesn't even show up on the fucking scale when you're comparing it to murder.
(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 08:02 (UTC)You're on the side of racist bigotry, I got it as early as the first time you argued that, yep.
(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 09:22 (UTC)(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 09:54 (UTC)(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 13:32 (UTC)(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 17:25 (UTC)Actually, it ain't just annoying Americans, the United Nations 'trumpets it far and wide' in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml/
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 17:52 (UTC)Article 20(2) of the ICCPR requires states to prohibit hate speech:
"Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."
...Article 20(2) does not require states to prohibit all negative statements towards national groups, races or religions but, as soon as a statement “constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,” it must be banned.
Further,
In the opinion of the Committee, these required prohibitions are fully compatible with the right of freedom of expression as contained in article 19, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities.
(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 18:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 18:19 (UTC)A website's stance on a particular case in no way addresses the fact of the contents and purpose of Article 20 (and neither the contents of the French laws against hate speech). And neither are the opinions of a particular advocacy group on the cartoons (or yours, to that matter) relevant to how the actual law would treat cases like this. Deflection attempt noted.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 18:34 (UTC)The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx) (ICCPR), of which the United States is a state party (https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en), states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law".
That better?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 18:22 (UTC)I'm not sure that many of the most vocal advocates of free speech are remotely prepared to recognize this.
(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 18:36 (UTC)Direct threats, Slander, the old "fire in a crowded theater" cliche'? These things are all reasonably considered to be off-limits, or at the very least, dangerous ground.
Anything else is fair game.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 18:03 (UTC)Articles 32 and 33 prohibit anyone from publicly defaming or insulting a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. The penalty for defamation is up to a year of imprisonment and a fine of up to €45,000, or either one of those punishments. The penalty for insult is up to six months of imprisonment and a fine of up to €22,500, or either one of those punishments.
(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 18:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 18:20 (UTC)O-o-o-kaay then...
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 18:27 (UTC)(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 18:31 (UTC)(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 18:37 (UTC)I thought we were discussing laws here. How exactly my presumed blood-thirst came into this, is beyond me. But sure, your ad hominem was already predicted (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1942293.html?thread=148687381#t148687381), and didn't come late. Most people are indeed so predictable. Is that the best argument you've got?
(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 18:44 (UTC)Personal attacks of this sort will NOT be tolerated. You can do better than this.
Consider yourself warned.
(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 18:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/1/15 18:41 (UTC)The last sentence.
Any other clarifications that you may require?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: