Russ, 

 

Thanks for calling the New Yorker text to my attention.  It seems to be making 
one of the distinctions that I was groping toward in my comments to Michel.  
But there’s another.  

 

Let’s imagine that you lived in a frontier town out on the Prairies – Little 
House on the Prairie stuff.   I think these issues would be clear because 
whenever you spoke, it would be clear who you might insulting.  It’s when we 
scale things up, that the issue begins to be confusing.  It’s one thing to tell 
a reasonable man not to give offense to particular people;  it’s quite another 
to tell him not to give office to anybody.  

 

I keep thinking I am going to get to some wisdom on this thing, but it eludes 
me. 

 

Nick

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 3:32 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] re the French and Furriners

 

The New Yorker has a good article about this: http://goo.gl/Hh90a1. Here's a 
core paragraph.

The different treatment accorded to Charlie Hebdo and Dieudonné is, however, 
built into France’s complex cluster of laws regulating protected speech. These 
laws are alternately very free and highly restrictive. Right after the French 
Revolution, France abrogated its old laws making blasphemy a crime—and 
soCharlie Hebdo’s blasphemous depictions of Muhammad are not a crime. At the 
same time, France’s press laws, which date to the late nineteenth century, make 
it a crime to “provoke discrimination, hatred, or violence toward a person or 
group of persons because of their origin or belonging to a particular 
ethnicity, nation, race, or religion.” In other words, you can ridicule the 
prophet, but you cannot incite hatred toward his followers. To take two more 
examples, the actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted and fined for having 
written, in 2006, about France’s Muslims, “We are tired of being led around by 
the nose by this population that is destroying our country.” Meanwhile, the 
writer Michel Houellebecq (whose new novel was featured in the issue of Charlie 
Hebdo that came out just before the attack) was brought up on charges, but 
acquitted, for having said in an interview that Islam “is the stupidest 
religion.” Bardot was clearly directing hostility toward Muslim people, and was 
thus found guilty, while Houellebecq was criticizing their religion, which is 
blasphemous, but not a crime, in France.

On Sun Jan 18 2015 at 7:34:19 AM Michel Bloch <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

Having been for several years one of the few “French moles” on your forum, I 
feel obliged to write for the first time. Hi Nick! 

1.     In Full Metal Jacket, Joker being asked why he wears the peace-sign on 
his marine-corps uniform, answers “Sir, this shows the ambiguity of human 
nature”. 

What you should know is that the key people from Charlie Hebdo were the best 
political cartoonists in France, a sort of “Pleiades of the Cartoonists”. They 
promoted anarchy and anticlericalisms and therefore were hated by most of the 
Establishment. To better express how incongruous the aftermath of their death 
was I enclose one of the many cartoons I received; it shows a fortune teller 
predicting to those guys what will happen after their death, and that’s how it 
goes: the bell of Notre-Dame-de-Paris will ring; the rightists will celebrate 
your fame, MRS Merkel will march in the street for you… All of this is so 
unbelievable that all they can do is laugh, laugh, and laugh! 

What followed the slaughter in Paris, was a combination of bottom up and top 
down phenomena’s so was very open to irrationality. Those events 
demonstrated-if needed-how ambiguous the human nature is! 

2.     As regards the freedom of speech and how it is defended in each of our 
countries, here again, it is not that simple. 

After Shoah, and to fight against a rampant anti-Semitism including the 
negation of the reality of the extermination of the Jews, laws were voted in 
France against the “Incitement to racial and anti-Semitic hatred”. So 
Dieudonné, the pseudo humorist but a true professional anti-Semitic activist, 
is prosecuted not “par le fait du Prince” but for breaching a law. He wrote I 
am Charlie followed by the name of the killer at the kosher hypermarket.  

Ambiguity again. I have been wondering many times how the American could live 
with a fully accepted first Amendment as regards the freedom of speech and the 
French needed what we call memorial laws. 

Thanks to Charlie, I discovered why. When it comes to sacred and key national 
matters, your Medias can practice self-censorships which would be unacceptable 
in France. 

I hope not to have been too disturbing for the members of this forum by both my 
different perspective and by my sort of Parisian English. 

 

Amicalement

Michel BLoch

33146370193

 <http://www.mountvernon.fr/> www.mountvernon.fr

 

 

De : Friam [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 
] De la part de Nick Thompson
Envoyé : dimanche 18 janvier 2015 01:59
À : Friam
Objet : [FRIAM] re the French and Furriners

 

Dear Friamers, 

 

As we tried to cope with the week’s events this Friday, we found ourselves in 
disagreement about the degree to which the French, in particular, had endorsed 
multiculturalism. In that connection, I found myself humming the following 
passage from the French national anthem:  

 

Aux armes, citoyens!
Formez vos bataillons!
Marchons! Marchons!
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons!

 

The English is …

 

To arms citizens Form your battalions
March, march
Let impure blood
Water our furrows


When I visited the French countryside many years ago, there were billboards 
with blond babies and messages like “keep france strong”.   Not sure, if I were 
a brown person, how comfortable I would feel in a crowd of a million people 
singing those particular lyrics.  Funny how these little antiquated expressions 
of solidarity can get out of hand. 

 

Whuf!

 

Nick 

 

PS Just to further the irony, the daily show (yes, yes, I know) reports that 
the day after the “Je Suis Charlie” rally for freedom of expression, the French 
police arrested a blogger for expressing anti semitic sentiments.  In short, 
because of their history with Algeria, I am afraid the French have a problem as 
profound as our own. 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Reply via email to