lol Maybe in the year 3000 AAA. Good one. Muslims represent only 7% of the French population. You'd be surprised that 4% of Americans are muslims as well. Racism is really creeping up around here. Stereotyping muslims as being uneducated and poor is kind of disturbing.
No, it's very much the point - especially when you try to turn individual acts into an indictment of Bush. Yes. There've been numerous excesses: Kurds denied a chance to speak up for their human rights and against Saddam at teach-ins and peace protests; prominent anti-war Jews denied the right to speak because they support Israel's right to exist. There have been numerous acts of cruelty and violence, both here and abroad, against Kurdish representatives, counterdemonstrators, or fellow protestors who just happened to be Jewish. Now why do I get the feeling that the totally objective French media haven't been spending much air-time on such events? As for actors, only since you bring them up, I live in Hollywood and have many friends in the industry: It's been a lot harder to speak out in favor of the war and the Administration than against them. I'm not in favor of bashing people or of preventing them from voicing and seeking to popularize their opinions, but just because someone has something to say doesn't mean that anyone is required to help them spread it around. I completely disagree with you that canceling an event because you'd rather not provide a platform to someone with whom you disagree, and whom you have every reason to believe is going to embarrass you, is repression. If there's any repression here at all, it would be the attempt to manipulate someone into assenting by silence. I'll go further: I think your accusations are absurd - particularly where you, as previously, claim they make Bush look like a hypocrite. What's more, I don't see why the Washington Post should give you a front-page by-line in order to repeat your statements. I'm not even interested at this point in putting them up on my web page. Are you now going to accuse me of squelching your free speech? What I find most disturbing about your example of the Canadian individual denied a printer is the sheer stupidity of whoever rejected the sale. Such isolated events notwithstanding, there's been no wave of suppression against the peace movement. In my opinion that's sheer fantasy. There has been a wave of ridicule and rejection, in my opinion much-deserved - but, as the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. To the extent that peace movement activists think they can utter harsh invective against the US, its leadership, and war supporters, day in and day out, and stand up on the side of a tyrant, and not receive a negative response, they're thinking like spoiled children.
You're answering besides the points Fry and you won't recognize the difference between free speech and repression. Cancelling an event JUST BECAUSE a movie contains Susan Sarrandon is repression. She's in a movie, how can she embarass you. It is exactly what I've said: Repression by the people. I never said the government or Bush was trying to repress. I am talking about individual acts alone. ""Now why do I get the feeling that the totally objective French media haven't been spending much air-time on such events?"" I have no idea man, I get the same news that you get. (I'm in the US).
Just saw on TV today a brand spanking new Iraqi politician wannabe going around Baghdad with a suit and a fistfull of pamphlets 'shaking hands and kissing babies'. He quickly jostled infront of a camera and laid out his spiel about how Iraq needs democracy and rule of law, etc... Wonderful stuff!
they live in "failed cultures" and "failed societies" in which they have a tremendous amount of "poisonous suspicion" regarding our Western values and freedoms. They can't understand why they have all of these natural resources under their own soil, and yet live in such poverty. The despot leaders like Saddaam then use Muslim Extremism to rally the troops and populace, and project the blame onto Western civilization and the U.S. In this way, there is no ACCOUNTABILITY. In this way, the despot creates his power and exercises his CONTROL. Given some time, the Iraqi people will see that there is in fact, another way of life . . . and it is a way of life that is to be enjoyed with satellite cable dishes, which are now legally sold in Iraq. There is nothing in this world that exterminates prejudice, hatred, and suspicion as freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Rock on IRAQ!
Swoop, Thought you said you were in France. Apparently, your US media outlets haven't been keeping you very well-informed either. I'm not sure whether it's your fault or theirs. As for the BULL DURHAM event, I'm not now sure we're talking about the same thing, or, if we are, if you're also familiar with what actually occurred. I'll refer you to a recent open letter to Tim Robbins from Rachel Lucas that covers it and related themes. http://www.rachellucas.com/archives/000530.html#000530 Otherwise, I think this discussion has strayed far off the topic of this thread, and, since I started the thread, I feel some responsibility for it. So, I'm done talking about this here. I think maybe you should start your own "freedom of speech thwarted" thread. I hope you don't feel I'm squelching your free speech by saying so.
not the most objective source I might add but I agree with you that this discussion has gone astray and should end. It's been good sharing point of views, even though we do not share the same standpoint. Take care and let's hope this war is over and does not create more problems. If Iraq ends up having an independent government within a year that embraces democracy, I will concede that the US has a partial victory in that war. If it discovers (and i guess this is left to interpretation) WMD, I can say that the US will regain much of its credibility. Finally, if terrorism decreases by this agressive policy, I will bow down and concede full victory to the USA. But the odds of this happening are slim.
Revolution city Now the war is over, Iraq's downtrodden Shia majority is rising up. It speaks with many voices, but its demand is simple - Islamic government under sharia law http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940224,00.html The Shi´a http://www.shia.org/
The French Muslims are, on the whole, relatively uneducated and poor. That's not a stereotype. There are differing projections and counting methods: Some begin with the larger number of North Africans rather than Muslims in France. Others presume continuing immigration. I agree that, when Guy Milliere projects a majority Muslim France in twenty years, he seems to be either talking through his beret, or extrapolating very generously on the basis of rising fertility among the overwhelmingly young immigrant population and declining fertility in the much older French majority population. It's still very hard to get to a Muslim majority on this basis unless you also presume massively expanding migration and conversion. The "Barbarians at the Gates" article seems more credible to me, partly because the author writes with a less alarmist tone at least on this subject: He cites projections that suggest the possibility that, by the end of this century, the descendants of North and West African immigrants in France will account for only around a third of the population. That's still obviously a significant number, and a signficant demographic tendency, especially given the immigrants' apparent segregation from and resentment toward the country as a whole. France's problems still look rather severe, and lend at least some credibility to Den Beste's speculations, but it may be too early to start planning for how to deal with the Islamic Republic of France.