![The Economist explains](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20150114050650im_/http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/50_by_50/images/2014/12/blogs/economist-explains/20150103_woc626.png)
The Economist explains: How marriage makes people healthier
The Economist explains
The Twitter-sphere was sizzling overnight with reactions, some indignant but most joyfully sarcastic, to the assertion by a "terrorism expert" interviewed on Fox News that Britain's second city was now a Muslim-only place. And the guffaws barely died down when the expert, Steven Emerson, offered an unconditional apology for slurring the "beautiful city" of Birmingham: a claim which even its most loyal residents would hesitate to make. In one popular quip, the city was renamed Birming out of deference to its residents' aversion to pork. For the record, Erasmus has often reported from that city, and some parts of it, though certainly not all, are still comfortable places for non-Muslims to live and go about their business. And however awkward the reality, no conurbation, be it the British one or its American namesake—the greatest city in Alabam'—likes to be known mainly as a byword for inter-communal segregation.
Transatlantic name-calling, some of it light-hearted and some of it anything but, has been one of the reactions to last week's horrific events in France. At yesterday's vast demonstration in Paris of world leaders and ordinary folk, there was no top-level representative of the Obama administration, and on both sides of the pond, some people regretted that. (Actually I am not sure that showcasing world leaders was a good idea at all, given that the defence of free speech, and the willingness to endure offence that underpins free speech, ultimately depends more on ordinary people than on their masters.)
One of the first American responses to the Paris shootings was something like: the Europeans brought this on themselves through their weak-minded appeasement of Islam, and their unwillingness to defend free speech in a robust way. Some robust discussion of that subject is certainly needed, but stereotyping the old continent as a zone of halal-food eating surrender monkeys, in contrast with virtuous Uncle Sam, is not a helpful part of that discussion, first and foremost because the presumed contrast between sloppy Europe and clear-sighted America doesn't reflect reality.
As evidence of hypocrisy and softness, it is recalled that only a few years ago, President Jacques Chirac put heavy pressure on Charlie Hebdo not to republish cartoons of Muhammad. But the American administration faced a broadly similar dilemma, and made a broadly similar response, when Pastor Terry Jones was threatening to burn copies of the Koran. Constitutional principles like free speech and church-state separation made it impossible to prevent Mr Jones from doing as he planned; but he came under massive pressure to desist from his plans, from such figures as General David Petraeus (not usually seen as an appeaser) who said the act would endanger American lives.
In one instant, and on balance correct response to the Paris shootings, a respected American observer of religious freedom, Nina Shea, argued that Europe must not respond to the atrocity by succumbing to its already entrenched habit of curbing free expression through "hate-speech" laws. She is certainly right about the general principle. But the people and organisations which are most passionate in denouncing European appeasement also insist, in slightly different contexts, that America has become a nightmarish place to profess religious faith. In her article, Ms Shea cites the case of an unnamed church in Britain which faced an attempt from its Muslim neighbours to prevent it from singing hymns, and had to turn to an American lobby group, the Alliance Defending Freedom, for legal help. Whatever the horrors unfolding in Europe, the said Alliance also proclaims on its website that "the church is being silenced across America."
In fact, all Western liberal democracies have a similar problem. They all cherish the principle of free speech, subject to legal limits which at a minimum, outlaw direct incitement to violence, as in "let's go and kill members of group X or Y...." Some democracies, perhaps rather too broadly, also outlaw negative characterisations of groups of people, defined by ethnicity, race or religion, which might arguably lead to violence against those people. All rely heavily on cultural norms which strongly discourage people from certain kinds of speech because they are deemed offensive to vulnerable groups, whether they are defined by race, gender or sexuality. All democratic governments face a dilemma over assertions of free speech which threaten their strategic or commercial interests. And in all democratic countries there is a range of opinion over where to draw lines. To put it mildly, neither "sloppy" Europe nor "unsophisticated" America has found the perfect answer. And if they spend too much energy slagging each other off, that will be a perfect gift to the enemies of liberal democracy.
This blog, named after the Dutch Renaissance humanist and scholar, considers the intersections between religion and public policy
Advertisement
The Economist explains: How marriage makes people healthier
The Economist explains
Free speech and public signage: Signs, signs, everywhere a sign
Democracy in America
Egypt's judicial politics: From Pharaoh to Phoenix
Middle East and Africa
Babbage: January 13th 2015: Online games
Science and technology
Fuel surcharges: A fuel and his money
Gulliver
Anti-poverty programmes: Helping the poorest of the poor
International
Graphic detail
Advertisement
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
In Other Words
Try our new audio app and website, providing reporting and analysis from our correspondents around the world every weekday
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you’ll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
It is worth noting that the most successful among G7 countries in 'coexisting' with Islam is Japan, where the restraint on free PUBLIC expression on religious matters is traditionally the strongest. Religion in Japan is treated as a private matter not to be discussed publicly, yet there is also a strong consensus to accommodate individual religious observations where practical.
I would appreciate an input from Muslims living in Japan as to why the Muslim communities here do not make the sort of public displays of Islamic defiance here in Japan as often made in Europe or America.
The problem many people is not seeing is the indoctrination of young muslims into religion in societies that care less and less for the idea of an all-seeing god. There is a clear reaction against the "godless" west. But young Arab descendents should feel as part of society, enjoy our freedom and not be the odd ones. Education plays a big role in making people care more about their fellow humans than any deity. This is something America should also think about before it is taken over by the christian version of jihadism.
The parallel doesn't work, sorry. It falls apart when UK arrests and prosecutions for hate-speech are taken into account.
In a way the US has it right, it was Labour under the leadership of Tony Blair that want to "rub the Right's nose in diversity" :http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100025635/labours-secret-plan-to-lure-immigrants-was-borderline-treason-and-plain-stupid/
Many continental leaders followed this style, it was also used to bash those that do not think that EU membership for the UK is a great idea, so yes some did bring it on themselves.
Our leaders and some of our media's response to atrocities is satirical, all the mainstream voices sound like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6G6CZT7h4k
I take the point in the article about Steven Emerson's comments on Birmingham, but the Economist should not attribute those comments to all Americans; attribute them to Fox News and similar rag sheets. Similarly, the notion that most Americans first reacted to the murders at Charlie Hebdo by thinking something like "Europeans brought this on themselves" suggests that folks at The Economist are watching Fox News too much and assuming that Fox News actually speaks for all Americans. Shocking though it apparently would appear to the author of this article, many Americans, including this one, have lived in Paris. Independently of the Charlie Hebdo murders, we continue to reserve a special spot in our hearts for both Paris and France. Our immediate and sustained reaction to Charlie Hebdo probably was not very different from the reaction of most French citizens.
Bob Matthews
Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Birmingham Al-Habama.
What is radicalization?
There is a viral toxic phenomena that is exclusive to young Muslim males that turn young family men into walking suicide time bombs.
And these men are unreformable and can go sleeper for years before they strike.
Apparently it can be accomplished in days if not weeks.
Promise then an 'orgy in heaven with 72 naked virgins', and then you get a small cell that can cause 9/11 and shutdown a nation.
Islam can make young men into psychopathic killer zombies. And they can go viral. And the madness is incurable.
If you can understand brainwashing,
then you can cure terrorists.
Otherwise you get 'holy warriors ' who are sociopathic murderers.
They are worse than flesh eating zombies because they use AK-47 and suicide bombs.
And the fear of Islam Zombie Apocalypse is the basis of Western Fear of Islam.
Charlie Hebdo, 9/11, 7/07, and 4/11 have all reinforced the fear of Bad Muslims.
And radicalization is as unique to Islam as the suicide bomber.
The West thinks men can be more than walking time bombs.
Why isn't it an insult to Islam to believe Allah got it sooo wrong by creating millions of non-Muslims that other REAL Muslims now have to murder to clean up Allah's mistakes?
I don't read French newspapers so would like to know whether this hate engendering Charlie rag has ever published disrespectful cartoons of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary.
It has & of other faiths too.
And if it turned out that they hadn't published enough of them to your satisfaction, there is nothing stopping you from publishing some more. Many more.
Good
Nice news
Well...
https://www.facebook.com/dario.carminati.92/posts/10205652562618526
Laws are made for “their strategic or commercial interests” of a nation, so, Laws are changed in times when interests are changed. But culture is the son of wisdom which keeps on real interests of a nation.
So, keep “ All rely heavily on cultural norms which strongly discourage people from certain kinds of speech because they are deemed offensive to vulnerable groups, whether they are defined by race, gender or sexuality.’’
Nasir Uddin
So be discouraged. I am too.
But let those who are not, speak without fear for their lives. Let them merely fear for their reputation, which you and I may attack unconditionally.
"So's yer old man!"
"Your mudda wears combat boots!"
The above arguments are at least as sound in tone and logic as that of this TE essay.
I read eight or ten newspapers/national magazines in a typical day and I have not read any Yankee sneering at the Europeans. (Full disclosure -- I don't watch Fox News. Who the hell would?)
In the small change of conversation around the water cooler at work I heard nothing but dismay over the "Charie" attacks, salted with a bit of edginess toward Islam. No one that I know gloated, "That will serve the Frogs right!"
We were all pretty sick about it as, I think, are most Americans.
Few of us on this side of the Pond sit up nights wondering how the French or Brits are doing with their large Muslim populations. Don't over-estimate, dear Jacques and Alfie, just how interested Brother Jonathan and Uncle Sam are in your affairs.
I will, though, pass on a few things I HAVE heard from acquaintances or read about in some magazines, etc. These are representative of absolutely nothing:
* Why have the Europeans so little regard for their own histories and religious traditions that they permit such heavy Muslim immigration?
* The Europeans, not all, but some, seem determined to label as "racist" any public discussion of Muslims and terrorism. With all the understandable hullabaloo about "Charlie" and freedom of expression, haven't European intellectual and politicians shoved a sock in the mouth of anyone who questions the liberal/immigration agenda?
* Since European Jews, as well as Israelis, have not set off terrorist attacks in Europe and many, many Muslims (especially Arabs) have done so, why do so many Europeans hate Israel and praise Palestine? Why are so many Europeans anti-Semitic when the Jews have not hurt anyone?
* Since the US, far more than France or any other nation, is actually attacking terrorist bases in the Middle East, why is it that so many Europeans criticize the USA for doing just that?
* Why is there so much anti-Catholic sentiment in Europe while Islam, officially, gets a pass?
* If the European non-Muslim population doesn't want to have babies anymore, why shouldn't the Muslims inherit that particular area of the earth? (I have heard this from several people.)
* Are the Europeans crazy? They must be to give away their countries."
* Finally, is there anything in Europe like a conservative movement that wants to --- conserve? Conserve culture, conserve language, conserve heritage, conserve religion? Or is European politics just a collection of left-wingers who delight in giving away the store?
Now, as I said, no one I know spends much time worrying about Muslims in Europe. But, still . . . it all makes us wonder.
It acutally sounds like you do spend a lot of time worrying about Muslims in Europe... we're touched by your concern of course.
Mr Andros
A great summery of the present day situation,with questions that I am sure a lot of Europeans think of. As A Canadian where we have many people from around the world coming to live, we to have asked our selves the same questions you have posed.
I am sure, that as a Canadian all the various people who come here to make a new life have in common with the locals is that we all share in our winters, the price of housing and city gridlock.
One point of action we offer new immigrants is a guidance system so people can adjust with in our society. I don't know what Europe offers their immigrants, but Europe needs to work out something fast, before the entire continent is engulfed by their our paranoid fears. I hope Europe can set aside their local differences because it will provide a more peaceful future.
Mr Andros
A great summery of the present day situation,with questions that I am sure a lot of Europeans think of. As A Canadian where we have many people from around the world coming to live, we to have asked our selves the same questions you have posed.
I am sure, that as a Canadian all the various people who come here to make a new life have in common with the locals is that we all share in our winters, the price of housing and city gridlock.
One point of action we offer new immigrants is a guidance system so people can adjust with in our society. I don't know what Europe offers their immigrants, but Europe needs to work out something as well as explain to their local populations what the community guidelines are, before the entire continent is engulfed by their our paranoid fears. I hope Europe can set aside their local differences because it will provide Europe with a more peaceful future.
I lived in Canada for a while, if you think that you have "recipe" for immigrants ( muslim and Chinese ) You will see in 20 years, and in Europe next 50, white peaople will be on extinct, cheers
Great, less reduced skin cancer deaths.
The amount of melanin the various populations have has no effect on if they human or not.
The answer to mass immigration is mass deportations.
There is not a country in the world that can ensure free speech for all its citizens. All a country/society can do is enact laws to administer justice in the aftermath of violent confrontations.
Hopefully such laws can give society some sense of freedom, but those laws can never guarantee that freedom. That is a risk that every member of society must decide.
I haven't read any comments of which Americans made statements about this being Europe's fault... but now that you bring it up, I might be thinking it...
I very clearly remember an article in Le Monde within a week after 9/11. I very clearly remember articles in several European papers after the Boston bombings.
Those instances and more received a lot of press in the USA. So it wouldn't be too surprising that our comments would play big in Europe.
Might President Obama's absence Sunday in Paris have been a conscious decision to enable other assembled leaders to consider if any (or all) is/are ready to share the mantle (& responsibility) of World Policeman?
Wendell Laidley
I doubt that. I think he feels his own utter irrelevance.
Maybe he was afraid of having the old wounds about his middle name (Hussein) being opened publicy again...
Maybe it was because no President of the US no matter what political stripe or belief can simply without a monuments notice without any preparation take part in a public march through the middle of Paris, even under the best of circumstance, let alone one in which multiple terrorist operations are taking place.
You think the security services in Paris would welcome having to look after the number target for assassination while they are trying to locate various cells around the nation.
Everybody has the right to be respected as individual, his/her dignity, not harmed or attacked because their ideas or beliefs; but nobody can claim that everybody must respect his/her ideas or beliefs. I respect human beings, not necessarily their ideas. No respect to others ideas or beliefs is the base for rationality, science, and human creativity.
You don't kill an idea by killing the people who expressed it. If you do kill the people, you are a terrorist, which in hundreds of years in Europe was the norm in the religious persecutions and wars.
You don't kill an idea by killing the people who expressed it. If you do kill the people, you are a terrorist, which in hundreds of years in Europe was the norm in the religious persecutions and wars.
You don't kill an idea by killing the people who expressed it. If you do kill the people, you are a terrorist, which in hundreds of years in Europe was the norm in the religious persecutions and wars.
You don't kill an idea by killing the people who expressed it. If you do kill the people, you are a terrorist, which in hundreds of years in Europe was the norm in the religious persecutions and wars.
A lack of respect is also the basis for being a jerk. Let's not elevate all speech to the level of Galileo and The Monty Python. There's no need. We should be able to admit that some speech serves no purpose but to increase hate in this world but nevertheless should be protected because that's the bargain we've reached. You let me say whatever I want and I let you say whatever you want and we live with the social repercussions without imposing legal penalties.
My argument goes something like this: could you offer some support for the assertion made at the beginning of paragraph three?
I've been glued to the news since the first reports of the attacks, and I have yet to read or hear anything of the sort.
Then again, I don't watch Fox, read the National Review or pay attention to anything that comes from the Hudson Institute, CATO, ALEC, AEI or Heritage.
In fact, I don't know anyone who does.
If you really want to report on the US accurately, you should have correspondents who can cover something beside Republican prayer breakfasts and Georgetown cocktail parties. Someone brave enough to venture beyond the Beltway would be a real coup for you.