[aptidude187]

>As a French who went to french public schools, I take exception to that, as it is totally false and offensive.

Last time I checked the french people couldn't care less about something being 'offensive' or not, since it's covered by freedom of speech, that's why they constantly harass minorities by mocking them, their religion and prophets, all in the name of freedom of speech. Forcing girls to remove their hijab is evidence that it's your narrative that is biased and false. Justifying that discrimination is just further evidence of the internalized islamophobia, which has grown to such a degree that you don't even register blatant discrimination as such.

>France's egalitarian principles

Yea those 'egalitarian principles' that somehow only protect the secular elite, while minorities, using their religion against them, are constantly mocked and bullied in the media and discriminated against in targeted unfair laws - banning the hijab. Those 'egalitarian principles' have to manifest themselves in reality, but they didn't, up till now, they have only proven to be a charade.

[sheepdestroyer]

You're understanding of french values and society, especially of Laïcité [1], couldn't be farther from the trust.

Most french people take strongly to "Liberté Égalité Fraternité", and painting the whole country as hostile to minorities is extremely ignorant.

It is totally false to say that french freedom of speech permits to "constantly harass minorities by mocking them".

In fact our freedom of expression expressely forbids incitement to hatred. From wikipedia [2] : "Press Law of 1881 criminalizes incitement to racial discrimination, hatred, or violence on the basis of one's origin or membership in an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group.A criminal code provision deems it an offense to engage in similar conduct via private communication"

However, satyre of ideas/symbols like religions and prophets is not the same thing as mocking people, and is an integral part of what we call laïcité.

You are missing the point that people, in their individuality as human beings, deserve respect but abstract concepts do not.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_France

[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_raci...

[aptidude187]

>You're understanding of french values and society, especially of Laïcité [1], couldn't be farther from the trust.

My understanding of the french values is based on evidence, on the things I see and experience and based on the account of french citizens, reports and documented events throughout history.

> Most french people take strongly to "Liberté Égalité Fraternité", and painting the whole country as hostile to minorities is extremely ignorant.

Nothing but lip service, the evidence and daily realities paint a different picture. Again, you are just making assertions without substantiating them, name calling isn't making an argument. And yes, french society as I and many others have experienced is hostile to minorities and patronising on top of that. So you are the one who is extremely ignorant and have the audacity to project your own ignorance on others.

>It is totally false to say that french freedom of speech permits to "constantly harass minorities by mocking them".

Good, because I didn't say that it does permit it, I said that you do it under the guise of freedom of speech, totally different, among other bogus excuses.

>However, satyre of ideas/symbols like religions and prophets is not the same thing as mocking people, and is an integral part of what we call laïcité.

Spare me the hair splitting, insulting and mocking people's integral part of their identity is insulting them too. Furthermore there were cases when Charlie Hebdo Journalist was fired for being 'anti-semitic', while similar attacks on muslims were/are tolerated. There is clear cut islamophobia in french society and unfair application of laws regarding them. Don't insult people's intelligence with your weak vapid justifications.

> You are missing the point that people, in their individuality as human beings, deserve respect but abstract concepts do not.

No, you are missing the point, the amount of harassment under the guise of 'satire' with which secular elites constantly bully and harass minorities is what made french society so polarised and toxic to begin with:

"What the Charlie Hebdo caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad achieved was "not satire," and what they provoked was not "ideas," Finkelstein said.

Satire is when one directs it either at oneself, causes his or her people to think twice about what they are doing and saying, or directs it at people who have power and privilege, he said.

"But when somebody is down and out, desperate, destitute, when you mock them, when you mock a homeless person, that is not satire," Finkelstein said.

"That is, I give you the word, sadism. There’s a very big difference between satire and sadism. Charlie Hebdo is sadism. It’s not satire"

The "desperate and despised people" of today are Muslims, he said, considering the number of Muslim countries racked by death and destruction as in the case of Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen.

"So, two despairing and desperate young men act out their despair and desperation against this political pornography no different than Der Stürmer, who in the midst of all of this death and destruction decide its somehow noble to degrade, demean, humiliate and insult the people. I’m sorry, maybe it is very politically incorrect. I have no sympathy for [the staff of Charlie Hebdo]. Should they have been killed? Of course not. But of course, Streicher shouldn’t have been hung. I don’t hear that from many people," said Finkelstein.

Streicher was among those who stood trial on charges at Nürnberg, following World War II. He was hung for those cartoons.

Finkelstein said some might argue that they have the right to mock even desperate and destitute people, and they probably have this right, he said, "But you also have the right to say 'I don’t want to put it in my magazine ... When you put it in, you are taking responsibility for it."

Finkelstein compared the controversial Charlie Hebdo caricatures to the "fighting words," doctrine, a category of speech penalized under American jurisprudence."

[sheepdestroyer]

> Spare me the hair splitting, insulting and mocking people's integral part of their identity is insulting them too

This is flirting with integrism.

If religion was really an integral part of people's identity, apostasy would not be a thing. This is telling that it's cause of death penalty for religious extremists.

[aptidude187]

People can succumb to societal pressure and change parts of their identity, doesn't change the fact that it can be a part of their identity.

Out of all points made you pick a single one out and make rubbish arguments. You are not worth my time.

[sheepdestroyer]

It almost feels like you're being misunderstanding and misquoting on purpose.

Genuinely voluntary apostasy, punished by death, happens. And it's clearly 'not succumbing to social pressure' to do it in countries that criminalize it and punish it by death.[1]

And then you replace 'integral part of your identity' by merely 'part of your identity', however that's the important word you're omitting.

When I was younger I liked some styles of music and felt them part of my identity too. Some used to mock and critisize them, and now that my tastes changed, I can see why.

However, particular musical genres were never an integral part of my identity the same way people are gay or not, or have a particular ethnical background.

Attributing some special powers to a class of mere opinions is wrong, misguided and often used as a tool of oppression.[2]

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy

[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

[aptidude187]

>It almost feels like you're being misunderstanding and misquoting on purpose.

Says the guy who responds to a fraction of the arguments and makes absurd arguments expecting to be taken seriously.

>Genuinely voluntary apostasy, punished by death, happens. And it's clearly 'not succumbing to social pressure' to do it in countries that criminalize it and punish it by death.[1]

What the hell are you even on about? You make 0 sense. You were talking about apostasy and I merely explained that it's nothing out of the ordinary that people can succumb to social pressure and change their identity, this was very specific in the context of french society. So spare me your islamophobic rants.

>And then you replace 'integral part of your identity' by merely 'part of your identity', however that's the important word you're omitting.

So? You clearly don't understand the english language very well. Integral merely means "important, essential..." and leaving it out doesn't change the essence of the statement. Keep hairsplitting tho.

>However, particular musical genres were never an integral part of my identity the same way people are gay or not, or have a particular ethnical background.

Terrible comparison. A taste in music is not the same thing as a religion which encompasses almost every aspect of your life. Again, terrible terrible comparison.

>Attributing some special powers to a class of mere opinions is wrong, misguided and often used as a tool of oppression.

Yea, you just perfectly described France's abuse and misuse of 'satire' and 'free speech' to discriminate against minorities. France has its own blasphemy laws, although they don't label them as such, they are functionally and consequentially, the exact same. Not to mention what secular France has done in its colonial past, murdering and torturing millions of Algerians and Africans for resisting occupation and opposing secularism. Learn your own history and present before you try to lecture others.