Who sparked what?
There’s a French schoolgirl who had the audacity to film “an anti-religious diatribe on social media,” to use the Guardian’s terminology.
The Guardian also buried what inspired her to do so halfway down the page.
Mila, 16, from near Lyon, became a cause célèbre in January after she made a live broadcast on her Instagram account in which she spoke about her homosexuality. A Muslim commentator responded she was a “dirty lesbian” and a “dirty whore”. She responded by posting a video diatribe against Islam.
Her outburst sparked death threats and social media users posted her personal information online, including where she was attending school. The public prosecutor has opened an investigation for “death threats, threats to commit a crime and harassment” against her attackers and a separate inquiry into whether she had “provoked religious hatred”, which is punishable by the law.
Abdallah Zekri, general delegate of the French Council for the Muslim Faith (CFCM), told French radio: “This girl knows exactly what she has done … they who sow, reap.” Zekri added that the teenager’s comments were not covered by freedom of expression but were insulting and provocative. Afterwards, Mohammed Moussaoui, the new head of the CFCM, said criticism of Islam had to be accepted and no remarks justified death threats. “We have to accept all the debates and refuse all violence,” Moussaoui wrote.
“Insulting and provocative” does not mean “deserving of death threats.” Note, also, that the Guardian did what it so often does: said “Her outburst sparked death threats” rather than, say, “some people responded to her video with death threats.” Notice it didn’t say the guy who called her a dirty whore “sparked” her video.
The case has brought echos of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015, which the perpetrators claimed was in retribution for the satirical newspaper publishing cartoons several years previously of the prophet Mohammed that were considered offensive by many Muslims. In a 2007 legal case against the paper, judges declared: “In France it is possible to insult a religion, its figures and its symbols … however, insulting those who follow a religion is outlawed.”
But many believers take the view that insulting the religion is insulting those who follow it.
This is the problem. This should not be against the law, at least not as worded. Making it against the law to commit acts of violence against people because of their faith, yes, of course, but then committing acts of violence against people are supposed to be against the law, anyway.
This is just so much like trans dogma – words are perceived as “real violence” and are considered the cause of literal, actual, concrete physical violence, which gets tut-tutted at, but excused because they were “provoked”.
People insult my belief all the time – should I say my lack of belief? I have never once sent a death threat to someone for claiming there is a god, not even for painting atheists as dirty filthy godless scumbags. (I accept the godless part; it is not necessarily of a piece with the rest). But even my moderate religious friends, ones who are in general much better than the god of their religion, seem to find it difficult to tolerate criticisms of their faith (not that I make many; I tend not to talk religion with religious people because the circular reasoning makes my head hurt). A lovely woman I know will not go see plays like Agnes of God because of the criticism of the Catholic Church. She will hear no criticism, and so seems unaware of the nastiness perpetrated by priests on altar boys, young girls, and women. She insists that her church is fine with birth control, death with dignity, and whatever else she happens to believe in, like feminism. So saying anything even marginally anti-church in her presence “upsets” and “provokes” her. But she’s never been “sparked” to send death threats, as far as I know.
Yes but. It’s complicated. Look at Trump for instance – he does provoke religious hatred, and it’s dangerous and bad that he does it. It’s a very difficult line to walk. We had to deal with the issue when we wrote Does God Hate Women?, and I was glad Jeremy wrote that chapter, because I didn’t want to. I want to be free to say exactly what I think about religious rules and practices, but in the world as it is I can’t be. I hated it that Linda Sarsour and her hijab were a symbol of the women’s march, but I didn’t say so much, because it’s complicated. I don’t love Ilhan Omar’s hijab, but I don’t say so, because it’s complicated.
I’m always suprised that Muslims do not seem to see that when they proclaim that Jesus is merely a prophet, they are profoundly insulting, offensive and provocative to Christians who believe that Jesus is a god. They are all delusional.
I find myself soft pedaling about my lack of belief, like “I’m not religious”, or “I don’t believe in that stuff”, just because it is less provocative than saying I’m atheist. I think Christians assume I’m Christian mostly, but I don’t make much out of it anymore. I have said “I’m not Christian” to people before though, and it’s kind of amusing to see some of the reactions. I pick my battles.
If what I am reading is correct, she first did a video about herself which had nothing to do with Muslims (?).
Then a Muslim (?) in the comments called her filthy twice and called her a prostitute.
She responded with a colorful critique of that faith.
Funny how nobody is trying to find the guy who REALLY started this to tell him off for his behavior.
Well, not funny and not surprising, either. Men can say what they want to real women and almost never be held to account.
“…. Men can say what they want to real women and almost never be held to account.”
Nobody has a right not to be offended, which upon reflection is the only way things can work. So I can ridicule and abuse someone and/or their religion to my heart’s content, calling them all the rude names under the Sun and telling them that their religion stinks, and in western democracies they can’t legally do a thing about it. (Perhaps things are different in say, Somalia.)
The moment the target of my ridicule responds with a threat of physical violence, that becomes the ‘assault’ part of ‘assault and battery.’ No use saying in court he/she was offended or ‘provoked’. And when they take it further into a physical attack, that becomes the ‘battery’ part of ‘assault and battery’; for which the law in the West has penalties.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_and_battery
This shows how all religions are fragile and crumble under any scrutiny. They have to maintain indoctrinated, oppressed, and blinkered followers who would become hateful and violent in it’s defense. It’s not just Islam, it’s all religions. One of the most malignant things is how they oppress not just the followers, but everyone.