tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380090049852721671.post3124846363758431213..comments2023-05-03T09:05:55.102-07:00Comments on Jacobinism: Islam and the Right to OffendUnrepentant Jacobinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09256579083755037018noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380090049852721671.post-21753404813299153492012-10-18T17:04:05.471-07:002012-10-18T17:04:05.471-07:00Thanks for the comment.
To clarify, I understood ...Thanks for the comment.<br /><br />To clarify, I understood the intention of Hasan's final argument, but wanted to draw attention to the sloppiness with which it had been made. Hasan seems to think that Aaronovitch is analogous to Offended Muslims Everywhere and that the mob is analogous to the Charlie Hebdo drawings. A far more evident (if completely unintended) parallel is mob = rioting Fundamentalists (whose feelings Hasan wishes to protect) and Aaronovitch = besieged author/cartoonist. The irony here is entirely at Hasan's expense. This incoherence seems to be the product of an impulsive tendency to confuse and conflate.<br /><br />Aaronovitch did not reply to this point specifically, but I'm pretty sure he *would* object to being persecuted in the lurid manner described. But that's neither here nor there since it's not just a speech issue. Hasan tries to make it appear so by casually mixing up abusive views with threatening behaviour, and the right to organised protest with the harassment of an individual and his family by an ad hoc mob. The confusion he creates only rebounds on him. As you rightly point out, further ironies, no less self-defeating, can be unpicked by taking Hasan's example at face value.<br /><br />Elsewhere in the debate, Hasan suggested that if defenders of free speech oppose signs reading "No dogs, no blacks, no Irish" then this was evidence of inconsistency. As if a business owner's wish to enforce unlawful racial segregation is a free speech issue.<br /><br />On the categorical confusion wrt belief and race, Hasan is familiar with this objection. Which is precisely why I think he tried to discredit it upfront by asserting that Islamic belief is uniquely analogous to a permanent attribute. But since only observant Muslims can understand and appreciate this, the rest of us are asked to take his word for it. He seems to believe that his argument's apparent irrefutability is its strength. On the contrary. An extravagant claim like that requires pretty solid corroborative evidence to be persuasive. Particularly since it is transparently self-serving.Unrepentant Jacobinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09256579083755037018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380090049852721671.post-3520740273080969292012-10-17T23:59:09.471-07:002012-10-17T23:59:09.471-07:00Excellent, comprehensive post. (And welcome to the...Excellent, comprehensive post. (And welcome to the barricades!) A few points. <br /><br />These arguments advocating the suppression of free speech in support of – remarkably, actually – specifically Muslim sensitivities are rarely even arguments at all. They come in the form of claims that present almost no implicative chain of reasoning leading to them. This is because what passes for argument are incoherent assertions easily revealed.<br /><br />For instance, regarding Hasan’s second point, the United States, for one, has not outlawed hate speech. It has passed controversial hate crime legislation, but among those crimes is not speech.<br /><br />For instance, Hasan (drawing no sympathy from you) states on the nature of prejudice and “Islamophobia,”<br /><br />I would argue, that that is a total misreading of what belief is, and how people hold religious beliefs. In particular, Muslims. My Islamic faith defines my identity far more than my racial or cultural background. David wants to be free to mock my beliefs or my prophet but he would never dare mock my race. As a Muslim, I would rather he mock my skin colour than that which is most important – most dear – to me in my life, which is my faith and my prophet.<br /><br />Hasan is here committing a basic categorical confusion, between a permanent attribute and an acquired characteristic, in Aristotelian terms, between a quality and an affection, a distinction with which Hasan’s medieval forbears would have been familiar. In addition, prohibitions against prejudicial behavior are not based upon how deeply hurt the victim feels by the behavior. Hasan does not get it at all – or the utterly self-contradictory consequences of such a standard.<br /><br />Furthering that point to conclude, at your close, I think you may mistake Hasan’s purpose in his challenge to Aaronovitch. Hasan is presuming that Aaronovitch would want the demonstrations stopped, seemingly proving Hasan’s point. (You don’t say how Aaronovitch responded.) But, of course, Hasan would surely defend many such demonstrations against the colonial abuses of the West, demonstrating in yet another instance the total incoherence of his position.<br /><br />You suggest that “perhaps the right to offend has become a duty, after all.” Indeed.<br />the sad red earthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03274385814146546329noreply@blogger.com