MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Curtailing Liberty Provokes Terrorism

There is no trade-off between freedom and security

ParisTerrorismCNNHow should liberal democracies respond to terrorist attacks like the horrific series of murders on Friday in Paris? By re-emphasizing their liberal values such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion suggest a couple of recent studies. In a recent article in Conflict Management and Peace Science, State University of New York at Brockport political scientists Nilay Saiya and Anthony Scime using the Government Regulation of Religion Index analyze terrorism incidents in 174 countries found in the Global Terrorism Database between 2001 and 2009. In 2009, the Pew Research Center issued a report that found that 70 percent of the world's population lives in countries that impose high or very high restrictions on the practice of religion.

The two researchers conclude:

The question of the relationship between religious liberty and religious terrorism carries significant policy ramifications: is fighting terrorism best accomplished through religious restrictions or religious freedom? This article has made a simple but important claim: the denial of religious freedom increases the likelihood of violent religious forms of political engagement; paradoxically, the best way to combat religious terrorism is not by restricting religious practices but rather by safeguarding their legitimate manifestations. Regimes that repress religion invite the very belligerency they seek to thwart through such restrictions. These ideas are not necessarily intuitive, but neither are they new. Similar claims were made by prominent intellectuals like John Locke, Voltaire, Adam Smith, James Madison, David Hume and Roger Williams hundreds of years ago.

New York University political scientist Tiberiu Dragu has just published an article on "The Moral Hazard of Terrorism Prevention." His analysis uses game theory to ask if restricting freedom of expression will more likely prevent or provoke terrorist acts. From the abstract:

Since 9/11, democratic governments have responded to terrorist attacks with antiterrorism measures curtailing freedom of expression and other fundamental rights and liberties, all in the name of terrorism prevention. How does a policy of reacting to terrorist attacks with restrictions on free speech protections aect the likelihood of terrorism?...The paper shows that in a world in which democratic governments respond to major terrorist attacks with restrictions on freedom of expression and other rights and liberties, such policies have a moral hazard effect, which can make a terrorist attack more likely. The analysis suggests that a commitment to respecting fundamental rights and liberties in times of duress can be security-beneficial: if liberal societies were to remain faithful to their fundamental values in the aftermath of terrorist attacks, such a strategy possibly decreases the probability of a terrorist attack.

These studies suggest that giving up our freedoms in response to terrorist attacks will more likely make us less, not more, secure. As Benjamin Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." If these two studies are right there is no such tradeoff: not only won't people deserve either; they will, in fact, get neither.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • JW||

    How should liberal democracies respond to terrorist attacks like the horrific series of murders on Friday in Paris?

    By curtailing what's left of civil liberties and killing more and more innocent people to get to killing the bad guys?

    What do I win?

  • ||

    The future!

  • ||

    People who give up their liberties because of some event were already trying to give them up before the event occurred. I saw that everywhere long before 9/11. Such people do not have a future.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, no, no. He said "should" not "will."

    Pretty common knowledge that France has far fewer protections of civil liberties than the U.S., so that kind of proposed "solution" shouldn't go very far. But they did it after 9/11 in a country that laughed off the previous administration's attempts to restrict civil liberties, so who knows?

  • IceTrey||

    We shouldn't be dropping bombs we should be dropping Hollywood movies, Levi's and Rock and Roll. The way to defeat radical Islam is to improve the people's lives through capitalism.

  • ||

    I agree, but you can't force it on them. Trying to force westernism on these people is what led to this mess in the first place.

  • ||

    Trying to force westernism on these people is what led to this mess in the first place.

    That's the common wisdom, but I think the common wisdom is wrong.

    Two questions:

    1. Are the perps of this and previous ISIS-related attacks in Europe mostly homegrown?
    2. Why are large scale ISIS-related attacks common in Europe but rare (and limited in scope) in the US?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    1. Are the perps of this and previous ISIS-related attacks in Europe mostly homegrown


    Yes.

    2. Why are large scale ISIS-related attacks common in Europe but rare (and limited in scope) in the US


    I assume you mean Islamist rather than ISIS, because far as I can tell there were two (maybe three) ISIS-related-attacks so far in Europe. And I think there are only three attacks so far with bigger body count than Ft Hood (Madrid 2003, London 2005, Paris II 2015).
    And the answer is
    a) Europe took in whoever came over, US has high entry requirements
    b) Europe has a longer history of Muslim immigration
    c) Europe has colonial guilt, preventing them from assimilating the first native-born generation
    d) European countries have far more Muslims (migrant and home-grown) than US.
    e) welfare state means migrants who can't find jobs stay rather than leave
    f) (and most important) Muslims in Europe use explosives when they commit big swineries. Muslims in US use firearms. Maybe it's harder to make your suicide bombs due to controls since Oklahoma? No idea.

  • ||

    Muslims in Europe use explosives when they commit big swineries. Muslims in US use firearms. Maybe it's harder to make your suicide bombs due to controls since Oklahoma?


    Bomb making is trivially easy. Why don't our Muslims do this? Could it be the "a" word that the US does so well and Europe does so poorly?

    c) Europe has colonial guilt, preventing them from assimilating the first native-born generation

    You get 50% on that one. I don't know whether it's colonial guilt which is the cause, but assimilation is very much not a thing in Europe. It's not limited to the first generation. Where are the banlieus of New York? Why aren't hordes of young second and third generation immigrants in the US burning cars and creating no-go zones?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Bomb making is trivially easy. Why don't our Muslims do this? Could it be the "a" word that the US does so well and Europe does so poorly?

    What, assimilation means Muslims who do commit swineries in US are so dumb they don't know how to do easy stuff of bomb making?
    Assimilation can explain away lower number of attacks (though it's not as low as I assumed), but not why explosives were not used.

  • ||

    Yep. Bomb making is simple, but not as simple as pulling a trigger.

    All of the ones that have attacked here struck me as batshit crazy and borderline retarded. I would guess the answer lies there.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Muslims in Europe use explosives when they commit big swineries. Muslims in US use firearms.

    I don't understand the point of this or what evidence backs it up. How many Islamist attacks has the US suffered for you to draw this conclusion? There was Hasan, and it's clear why he used guns over explosives. The Tsarnaev brothers did use explosives.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Hassan, but also, Beltway Snipers. El-Al shooter.Chattanooga shooter. Little Rock shooter. Seattle shooter. Then there was Santa Clara stabber couple weeks ago. Few others are in the "iffy" category.
    But yes, I forgot the Boston bombings. Wasn't there a failed Times Square bombing too? So yeah, there's one example - hopefully they don't do more.
    And WTC bombing, but that predates 9/11, so doesn't count.

  • dantheserene||

    The Beltway Snipers were in it for money, not religion.

  • BillEverman||

    I think the more meaningful distinction is the lack of suicide bombers. Over there, they tend to walk into places, detonate a device and take themselves out along with the people around them. Over here, we have seen exactly zero suicide attacks since 9/11. Everybody either engages in a shootout (Hasan) or other survivable conflict, or sets a bomb and gets out of there (Tsarnaevs, guy who wanted to blow up Comedy Central after the South Park Mohammad episode). I think this is a matter of culture; there is a level of hopelessness in the Middle East and among some European Muslims that we haven't achieved (yet).

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Maybe it's harder to make your suicide bombs due to controls since Oklahoma? No idea.

    Europe had the same regulations before the US because of the IRA, ETA, etc.

  • HolgerDanske||

    Europe had the same regulations before the US because of the IRA, ETA, etc.

    Yeah, also European regulations didn't keep these murderous scumbags from getting their hands on (actual) assault rifles and stuff like grenades.

    Besides, I'm not sure there really is a trend of one type of murder implement over another for these kinds of attacks between the US and Europe. There were plenty of failed explosive attacks here in the US, and plenty of shooting spree type attacks in the rest of the world.

    Maybe it just seems like there is a trend because explosive attacks here have largely failed, while attacks with guns have been endlessly politicized in the media?

  • Agammamon||

    1. Yes.

    2. Because Europe has an unofficial but determined program of ghettoization of immigrants.

    In the US, we don't *force* you to become part of the mainstream - but you're welcome there if you want. In Europe immigrants are typically deliberately excluded through heavy regulation and high minimum wages.

  • Krabappel||

    And how many of these European-born terrorists have lived in segregated slums and been unemployed for long periods of time.

  • ||

    Trying to force westernism on these people is what led to this mess in the first place.

    We never tried to,force western is mom them. We tried to,force democracy on them. There's a big difference. And when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq 2, we took pains to not flaunt our way of life so as not to sensitivities. When what we should have done is open a liquor store, a porn shop, a Walmart and an electronics shop (but not Best Buy, because that would further enrage people and lead to more terrorism) at every intersection in the cities we took over. That's the westernism we should have introduced. Instead we just let them vote for extremists of varying stripes instead of installing a Governor-general to run the place and set up discos and pizza places and strip malls.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The 9/11 terrorists notoriously spent time in strip clubs before the attacks. Perhaps we should impose a New Porn Order.

  • ||

    And have Blue Monday Laws imposed? No thanks!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Not here. There. Porn, prostitutes, the whole shebang. Stuff that will attract common folk but will truly upset the radicals. Like male prostitutes.

  • ||

    I misunderstood. Yes, I agree with you.

  • Zeb||

    You know, I think that might be the best idea so far.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    We haven't forced anything on them. The fact of the matter is that a lot of these guys are from the upper tiers of their society and are pissed off about how willing everyone else is to buy into ours.

  • ||

    I vote for dropping acid.

  • sarcasmic||

    Agile Cyborg concurs.

  • Swiss Servator||

    He could be an "adviser"!

  • ||

    Wouldn't you prefer a disassociative more for this? Maybe PCP or Ketamine?

    "Man, I'm really in a k-hole right now."

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

    -1 Afghani schoolgirl

  • Hugh Akston||

    That's your solution to everything.

  • ||

    Don't argue with success, Hugh.

  • Pro Libertate||

    "Nacalm."

  • JW||

    "Agent Orange Krush"

  • fuckyougotmine||

    This is a parody libertarian response, right?

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Let's get the Velvet Underground to perform in Damascus.

  • Bern-o-Matic 5000||

    Someone see if Lou Reed is available.

  • ||

    Lou Reed is dead, man.

  • ||

    Excellent. Someone call Lou and see if he will go for it.

  • Bern-o-Matic 5000||

    I agree with dropping our Levi's!

  • ||

    dropping,our Levis

    More pants,on the ground and less boots on the ground, right?

  • Swiss Servator||

    *golf clap*

  • ||

    World leaders do not agree with this article, peasants just don't understand. You have to trade freedom for security, just ask Obama, Hollande. Fuck, ask any of them, they'll set you straight.

  • Zeb||

    You have to trade freedom for the promise of security. I have yet to see much evidence of the security half of that trade really happening. Especially in Europe.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What about the government lifting the boot after each attack instead? So, for instance, after Charlie Hebdo, France adopts a U.S. framework for free speech. Also, should throw in freedoms that particularly torque the terrorists.

  • Zeb||

    That would be refreshing.

  • sarcasmic||

    If these two studies are right there is no such tradeoff: not only won't people deserve either; they will, in fact, get neither.

    I thought that was Franklin's point.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Old, dead, white dude from, like, over 100 years ago!

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Unlike, say, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who aren't dead white males…

  • Swiss Servator||

    But they were, like, on the right side, man!

  • ||

    BTW, where are all of the videos of Muslim leaders condemning these attacks? Surely, there are thousands of them by now.

  • Rich||

    I know! There aren't any because making images is against their religion.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Auda abu Tayi: Am I in there?!

    Bentley: What?

    Lawrence: He means, did you take his picture?

    Bentley: Yes.

    [Auda smashes camera against rock]

    Auda: You are using up your nine lives, very quickly 'aurence.

    [Auda stalks off]

    Bentley: Charming company you keep, Major.

    Lawrence: Auda? He's a bit old fashioned. Thinks these will steal his virtue. He thinks you are a kind of thief.

  • Hugh Akston||

    If they're not going on the internet to prove they oppose violence, that proves they support violence!

  • Zeb||

  • SimonJester||

    From a cursory glance through those, most of them are from the US and Western Europe. I am sure that that this proves nothing, but I found it interesting.

  • Zeb||

    Maybe fewer from the rest of the world are speaking out. Or maybe it's to do with it being an English language Google search.

  • SimonJester||

    I had similar thoughts. Like I said, I don't think it means anything, I just noticed it.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I think a better question is where's your video condemning these attacks? Surely you've had plenty of time to make one.

  • BillEverman||

    Yeah, and where are all the white guys apologizing for the white cops shooting black kids? Because we all need to apologize for everything that someone who looks or claims to otherwise be like us does, or we're guilty too!

  • ||

    It doesn't matter whether curtailing liberty leads to more terrorism or not. Curtailing liberty is quite frankly the only thing the people calling the shots know how to do. It's something that they can do that is shows the public, quite immediately, that they are "doing something". They are not capable of any other response, nor would choosing any other response make any sense for them and their careers and power.

    So it's going to be liberty curtailment as a response. As always. Enjoy.

  • sarcasmic||

    Curtailing liberty is quite frankly the only thing the people calling the shots know how to do.

    Government's only tool is force. So all it can do is curtail liberty or give up power. It certainly ain't gonna do the latter, so curtail liberty it is.

  • IceTrey||

    Not true. There are two types of force, initiatory and retaliatory. Initiatory curtails liberty, retaliatory defends it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Usually retaliating against X takes the form of initiating force against Y.

  • IceTrey||

    Yeah, and my point is it doesn't have to be that way. Your comment assumed only initiatory force exists which isn't true.

  • sarcasmic||

    It doesn't have to be that way, but unfortunately that happens to be the way it is.

  • IceTrey||

    Which doesn't change the fact that the government doesn't HAVE to either curtail liberty or give up power. It can use retaliatory force and defend liberty without curtailing it. Your basic premise is flawed.

  • sarcasmic||

    In practice there is nothing wrong with my premise, because nobody in government gives two shits about defending liberty. Their only concern is keeping and expanding their power.

  • Restoras||

    In practice there is nothing wrong with my premise, because nobody in government gives two shits about defending liberty. Their only concern is keeping and expanding their power.

    History bears this out, repeatedly, therefore providing ample evidence of the truth of it.

  • IceTrey||

    Really? George Washington could have been King and gave up the Presidency after two terms.

  • Rich||

    Pretty much.

    And "we're all in this together, so thank you for your cooperation".

  • ||

    Enjoy.

    You're not my dad! YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

    Only your dad can make you? Is that why you hate your parents?

  • ||

    Go to your room! Right now!

  • JW||

    Hammer. Nail. Repeat.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Immigration lessons learned from Paris: the fact that economists favor a particular policy position does not necessarily make it a good policy!

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Immigants, I knew it was them! Even when it was French nationals, I knew it was them.

  • SimonJester||

    I dig your handle.

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    That's what Josephine said.

  • Swiss Servator||

    I am sure I will have terroristic thoughts when I go through TSA tomorrow.....

  • bacon-magic||

    *narrows TSA scanner parameters

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    I dream of a politician who would dare respond to these attacks by dropping millions of leaflets, SD cards, even some satellite radio and TV receivers, basically giving the finger to the control freak idiots in charge. But just as the folks who built one million Liberator single shot pistols didn't have the guts to carry through and drop them, politicians are far more worried about breaking the myth of needing government and politicians than actually fighting despotic government. All they really want is changing who controls the government levers, not the levers themselves.

  • SusanM||

    But just as the folks who built one million Liberator single shot pistols didn't have the guts to carry through and drop them

    Yeah, it couldn't have been that they were crap

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

    The FP-45 was a crude, single-shot pistol designed to be cheaply and quickly mass-produced. It had just 23 largely stamped and turned steel parts that were cheap and easy to manufacture. It fired a .45 caliber pistol cartridge from an unrifled barrel. Due to this limitation, it was intended for short range use, 1–4 yards (0–5 m). Its maximum effective range was only about 25 feet (7.6 m). At longer range, the bullet would begin to tumble and stray off course.
  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Yes, it was intended to shoot soldiers and grab their better weapons.

    They were quite effective in their intended use, but the powers-that-were got cold feet about letting mere civilians get hold of unregistered weapons.

  • Bern-o-Matic 5000||

    I vote we drop pennies on them. It's cheaper, could be lethal if it hits people from high enough, and the injection of American dollars will boost their economy!

  • SimonJester||

    I read "Penises" and not "Pennies." I was, for what it is worth, all for this.

  • Bern-o-Matic 5000||

    I support your idea, as well.

  • Akira||

    Someone beat you to it about 12 years ago.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I posted this on a dead thread. It works here. Sorry for the repost.

    War is politics by other means. Terrorism evolved because it is a nearly perfect form of warfare, where a small, poorly armed group can force political change against a large, heavily armed force. Their only weapon is fear. Oddly, the actual damage they are capable of inflicting is generally very small. They only threaten a very small portion of a population or nation's infrastructure. They are not a true threat to society, they are only perceived as such.

    There is only one way to address terrorism and that is through punitive action. That is to say, it cannot be effectively eliminated with conventional forces. It cannot be prevented. Attempting such only makes more terrorists, gives them credibility and expends tremendous amounts of resources in the process.

    Take away their weapon. Don't be afraid and don't call for unachievable action to be taken. The only way they can effect change is if you fear them. Odds of being killed by a terrorist is like one in 20,000,000, IIRC.

    When attacked, identify, capture, try, and punish/kill those responsible (and only those responsible). Then go about your life as if nothing happened.

    In the current situation, declaring war on Muslims, is playing right into their hands. That was the entire purpose for these attacks to begin with. The West declaring a holy war on all Muslims will draw otherwise peaceful Muslims to the ISIS cause.

    And many of you are falling for it.

  • wareagle||

    I'm for blocking further entry by them to the West. Yes, it will outrage the open borders crowd but Islam is openly hostile to the West. Europe is full of examples of how this experiment of integration has failed. We tried war and it failed. Same with diplomacy. This approach means no military action, no dead soldiers, no new laws to erode citizen rights. The Middle East has to resolve this problem as it was birthed in the ME.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Another idiot who thinks all muslims are identical? They are just people. Most don't give a rat's ass about anything outside their own circle. If you can't see that, then you are a narrow minded fool.

  • MetalBard||

    Doesn't matter if they're all identical or not, where ever you get a large minority of them you start having problems.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Doesn't matter if they're all identical or not, where ever you get a large minority of them you start having problems.

    Same can be said about crime and minorities right here in the US. There are certain minorities who commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Is your answer to send anyone belonging to those minority to camps?

    Or do you punish the guilty and protect the rights of the innocent?

    The sole purpose of ISIS attacks in France is to get the French equivalent of Yokels to start yammering for a war on all Muslims, thus driving the currently peaceful Muslims in the region into the arms of ISIS.

    That's how terrorists work. And it's working as intended.

  • wareagle||

    The minorities committing crime tend to commit that crime in their own neighborhoods, which doesn't make it good but does help in containing it. This group is intent on inflicting mayhem on others. And it would be nice if the peaceful Muslims, starting with those in the Middle East, took an active interest in corralling the worst among them. Radical Islam will not end until the rest of Islam does something about it.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    This group is intent on inflicting mayhem on others.

    That statement is simply unsupportable.

    A very small part of that group is intent on inflicting mayhem on others. Since when is it okay to punish someone for the action of another?

  • wareagle||

    there comes a point where the one robs the other of the benefit of the doubt. Yes, it's a small group. What's the larger group doing about it? A good many in that group give their tacit approval to the violence. The others may be scared to say anything for fear of reprisal but enough silence begins to sound like approval.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    What's the larger group doing about it?

    Since when is being a member of the same religion grounds for being accountable for the actions of another? I don't need, nor am I legally or morally required, to do jack shit about anything someone else does.

    What are the Italians doing about the Mafia? /wareagle

  • Rhywun||

    He said "don't let them in", not "punish them". These two things aren't the same unless you believe that they have a legal right to be here.

  • ||

    But it appears that even if the security agencies are aware of the bad actors that they can't or won't do anything about them.

  • ||

    Except that being an ethnic minority isn't a choice. Being a Muslim is an ongoing choice.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    You've just deluded yourself into thinking that Ahmed running the corner store isn't openly hostile to everything that the West stands for. But he is. So are Dave Chappelle and Kumail Nanjiani.

    (OK, Nanjiani is an atheist now, but immigrated here as a Shi'i from Pakistan)

  • wareagle||

    another idiot who cannot read. I didn't say they're identical but the radicals have stripped the rest of any benefit of the doubt. Islam is not compatible with the West.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    I guess you can't write what you want people to read. "Islam is not compatible with the West" seems pretty blanket to me. Maybe you should try again.

    If you base this claim on the great unwashed Muslim masses not condemning the few extremists, maybe you should carry that philosophy over to the west, where the great unwashed Christian masses don't condemn the few extremists.

    Most people simply have enough problems handling daily life without worrying about governments over which they have no control.

  • wareagle||

    I base this claim of the actions of doing things in the name of Islam, with either the implicit or explicit approval of the rest. Europe tried this great experiment and it's not worked. It has not worked because the newcomers will not integrate to their new surroundings.

    My way requires not liberty-draining laws, no war, no govt program.

  • ||

    My way requires not liberty-draining laws

    Except for the one that says, "No Muslims allowed," right?

  • wareagle||

    do you have a right to enter someone else's property? Uh, no. The Muslims already there have a choice to make - live by the laws of that country or find some new place.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Islam is not compatible with the West.

    How many times has that phrase been used and about how many groups?

    Wops
    Micks
    Chinks
    Spicks
    Jews
    Catholics

    Pick a group. But they are all here living together, mostly peacefully. How many Muslim uprisings have we had from the 5-12 million Muslim Americans?

    No, if there is ever an all out war between Muslims and the West, it will be because small, insignificant bands of terrorists will manipulate the West into forcing otherwise peaceful people into siding with terrorists.

  • wareagle||

    Europe has been awash in problems connected directly to Muslims. This group, unlike the others you list, is openly hostile to Western culture. Whatever moderate Muslims exist, they are either cowed by the radical strain or implicitly support it.

  • dantheserene||

    Are Moderate Muslims the religious equivalent of Good Cops?

  • wareagle||

    that's a good analogy.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    This group, unlike the others you list, is openly hostile to Western culture.

    That's simply not true. We have 12M here and they are not causing us any problems. The only problems being caused are by those attempting to blame an entire group for the actions of a very small minority within that group.

    Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, I didn't hear anyone claiming that all Christians who didn't write their congressmen calling for his head, after OKC. implicitly supported him.

    Come on, man.

  • wareagle||

    Tim McVeigh was one guy who was universally condemned, convicted, and executed in record time. The Islamic version has how many people cheering similar acts? We places like Dearborn MI, with a heavy Muslim presence and some issues.

    If you want to come here and assimilate and make a life, have at it. It's how my parents arrive. But don't expect to come here and turn it into what you left. The actions of the few, combined with the silence/approval of the many is hard to ignore. If that makes me a bad buy, okay, but I don't see other groups consistently involved in acts of mayhem.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    If you want to come here and assimilate and make a life, have at it

    SInce when is it a requirement to assimilate? The vast majority of people came to America because it was the only place that didn't require them to assimilate...liberty...remember?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Reading his wiki, he claimed to be agnostic, that religion was his science and requested a catholic chaplain before he died. So, maybe?
    His wiki is an uncomfortable read for sure. He's using the US Constitution the way bin Laden used Koran...

  • ||

    That's simply not true. We have 12M here and they are not causing us any problems.

    Well, except for Nidal Hasan, and the Tsarnaev brothers...

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Your right.

    3/12,000,000

    It's a huge problem. ;-)

  • Los Doyers||

    His right to what?

    /zeigheil

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    You're

  • Agammamon||

    How do you tell who are the Muslims?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Make them wear armbands?

  • Restoras||

    If they weigh the same as a duck?

  • Rhywun||

    Name?

  • sarcasmic||

    From the perspective of those who have power and want an excuse to expand that power, terrorism is the perfect enemy. The people in power know that it can't be eliminated by conventional means, and to them that is a good thing. It means they can fight it this way and that way, curtail and eliminate this freedom and that freedom, all the while giving the appearance of "doing something" while greatly expanding their power. They win. The terrorists win. The only people who lose are you and me.

  • wareagle||

    we win by not playing and that means don't let them in. You avoid war, you take away govt's incentive to come up with new laws, and you force the Middle East to confront the elephant in its living room.

  • sarcasmic||

    Who is going to get elected on a platform like that? Gotta "do something," and by that I mean promise to kill a bunch of brown people. That's how elections are won.

  • MetalBard||

    Donald Trump

  • Pan Zagloba||

    FN? Nigel UKIP? Swedish Democrats?

    Well, they're not winning dick, but the votes of all three parties (who all have disparate programs and philosophies otherwise) are on the rise.

  • Homple||

    Marine le Pen, although our sophisticates won't be inviting her to any cocktail parties.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    She runs FN, which I refuse to attempt spelling. I tried to keep it to parties rather than personalities (brain farted on 'Nigel Ukip' there).

  • Homple||

    I missed the abbreviation FN,

  • kbolino||

    She runs FN, which I refuse to attempt spelling.

    Front National

    ... maybe you've only heard it pronounced

  • Pan Zagloba||

    I'd have spelled it wrong, with couple extra "e"s and accents in wrong places, so I stand by my decision!

  • wareagle||

    I didn't say kill anyone. And doing nothing has a track record of failure.

  • sarcasmic||

    I didn't say kill anyone.

    There goes any chances of you ever getting elected.

  • wareagle||

    an outcome I will have to accept. I put forth an idea that involved no war, no new invasive laws, no violence and still they complain.

  • Restoras||

    ...and still they complain

    It's an essential aspect of the human condition.

  • IndyEleven||

    I'm not sure that in this context 'doing nothing' has actually been tried.

  • Restoras||

    Politicians and bureaucrats can't 'do nothing', they have to be seen 'doing something' to protect their phony baloney jobs.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    IMMEDIATELY! IMMEDIATELY! IMMEDIATELY!

  • ||

    ^This. See, also, Rand Paul.

  • ||

    And it's too late to not let them in; they're already here in large numbers.

    And what do you do about the homegrown Muslims - the American blacks who convert to Nation of Islam, etc?

  • Rhywun||

    I think whatever we're "doing" to prevent homegrown terrorism is largely working. E.g. if Nation of Islam has a coherent purpose, "destroying the West" doesn't seem to be part of it.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    And when those terrorists are also the people in charge of a government, the one thing they fear most is any kind of loss of public support. They fear the truth about what they are doing, they fear the truth about their supposed enemies, they fear their public learning anything approaching the truth. The most effective way to undermine those terrorist governments is spreading the truth in ways that the regime cannot deny. Broadcast live traffic cameras, airdrop movies and satellite radio/TV receivers which can be tuned to any channel to undermine claims of selectivity, and keep on doing so. It would be far cheaper, less risky, and more effective, and reduce the problem at its source.

    It would be especially effective with receivers which let the viewers choose any source they can find, such as neighboring countries, enemy countries, and neutral countries, because it would eliminate all arguments on how the propaganda only shows a subset of enemy life.

  • Jordan||

    You're spot on, Francisco.

  • IceTrey||

    Not sure about the infrastructure part. Take out a few key transformers in the dead of winter and we'd be in trouble.

  • Agammamon||

    *You'd be*. I live in a desert for a reason.

  • IceTrey||

    So take them out in the middle of summer. No power for months in summertime Phoenix wouldn't be pleasant.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Meh. Seems more likely to me that both restrictions on religious freedom and religious violence both stem from a similar root (statist religious tradition and impetus), rather than one being the cause of the other.

    But sure, let's pretend that the Middle East is one law away from becoming model social democrats on matters of religion.

  • ||

    But sure, let's pretend that the Middle East is one law away from becoming model social democrats on matters of religion.

    Weren't most of the perps were born and raised in Europe?

  • MetalBard||

    Yep. Assimilation doesn't seem to be working with these guys.

  • kinnath||

    Assimilation can't work when the indigenous population actively works to thwart assimilation.

  • ||

    Assimilation can't work when the indigenous population actively works to thwart assimilation.

    Bingo. The US is an entirely different culture than Europe in that respect.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    In France it is a two-way process.
    Yes, it's shitty that you are less likely to get a job if your name is Mohammed.
    But you are third generation - why not call yourself Michel?
    Besides, France has other minorities, including 300,000 Vietnamese, and they aren't as big a problem assimilating.

  • ||

    A large number of those vietnamese are catholics so they're already pre-assimilated.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Hilariously, I'm rereading Verdun 1916: Price of Glory, and it's on the anti-Catholic mania that hit France at the beginning of last century. To the point that being Catholic was enough to stop people from getting promoted in the military.
    Like the efforts of this happy fellow:

    under his guidance France took the first definite steps toward the separation of church and state. By 1904, through his efforts, nearly 10,000 religious schools had been closed and thousands of priests and nuns left France rather than be persecuted.[8]

    I'll also add that first generation of Arab immigrants to France were not very religious, and were in fact French loyalists. It's a bit pat, but maybe blame is to go to Saudis after all - this generation of Arabs is at least notionally more Islamic than previous ones were. And in a very nasty, supremacist way - yes, I get to fuck women, drink booze and take drugs, but if I catch you without a headscarf it's beating time (if you're one of mine) or raping time (if you're not).

  • Rhywun||

    why not call yourself Michel?

    Pretty sure names are closely tied to their religion.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    No, there are Muslims out there with non-Arabic names. Whole countries full of them.
    Besides, like Chinese here, you could be Mohammed on Friday in the mosque, and Michel when you apply for a job.
    (OK, Chinese are rarely called Mohammed but you know what I mean).
    France has set a rule a hundred plus years ago. Everyone is a Frenchman (as in, a citizen of France). That's why they have no clue how many Muslims or Arabs live there - census does not collect such information since 1872. The official government policy is assimilation, and has worked with other minorities (Vietnamese, Poles, Jews - shit, Sarkozy is Hungarian by origin). Their problems are different from those of Germany, Sweden or UK - each country has its own distinct approach to migration.

  • Zeb||

    No, we shouldn't pretend that the ME is just a few steps away from becoming a liberal society. But things moving in that direction is the only way forward if any of this shit is going to improve.
    A lot of people have been awfully excited to slam Islamic religion and culture the past few days. And to some extent that needs to be done. You need to be honest about what you are dealing with and there are plenty of quite negative aspects to Islam as a religion and political system.
    But unless you are ready to kill or convert all the Muslims, or Make Europe into (more of) a police state/fortress, it's really not too helpful to harp on that point quite so much. The whole situation is terrible and I don't have any good answers. But I am sure that "telling it like it is" about Islam is not the answer. Somehow integrating the Muslim population into Europe in a better way seems like the only alternative to massive violence from both sides. But I don't know how that happens either at this point.

  • wareagle||

    it will only move forward if the other ME nations act. We can't bomb it to conclusion or diplomacy it to conclusion. But keeping people who are hostile to your culture out does not seem a bridge too far. Why are these refugees unable to resettle in other Muslim nations where at least they have the faith in common?

    Europe tried integrating the Muslims and it has not worked. It's not just France; look at crime in Sweden, look at England. These ways of life are incompatible. Somehow or other, the ME nations have to assume responsibility.

  • Zeb||

    If they would drop the multiculturalism stuff and limit benefits to refugees and immigrants it would be a good start. People who have to work for a living are much more likely to have to integrate with the broader society.
    It is also terrible and ridiculous that the wealthy Muslim nations in the area aren't taking more responsibility for the refugees.

  • Agammamon||

    The thing I think people are forgetting is that sure, these are all Muslims - but they're different nationalities, ethnicities, and *sects* of Muslims. And they all hate each other. Remember the saying - the more petty the difference, the more viciously people will fight over it.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    the more petty the difference, the more viciously people will fight over it.

    Otherwise known as the First Law of Libertarianism.

  • Restoras||

    Dances-with-Trolls|11.16.15 @ 2:18PM|#

    the more petty the difference, the more viciously people will fight over it.

    Otherwise known as the First Law of Libertarianism.

    And the First Law of Local Sports Team Fandom

  • wareagle||

    and the odd common bond is the appearance, at least, of all hating the West. Islam has some problems that Islam is going to have to resolve.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    That is what ME governments want their people to believe — their country isn't crap because the leadership are corrupt incompetent kleptocrats but because of Western meddling.

  • Agammamon||

    And, just like in Cuba and elsewhere, we go out of our way to give the fuckers what they need to make those excuses plausible.

  • ||

    Europe tried integrating the Muslims and it has not worked.

    They really haven't. And given the deeply ingrained culture there, I don't think they can, either.

  • Restoras||

    Indeed, they haven't at all. Europe needed workers to support its welfare state - it never had any interest in immigrants for any other purpose. They would never be French, or German, or English, or Italian - just an other there for a purpose. So even if they wanted to assimilate they wouldn't be allowed to.

  • Rhywun||

    I think they're making progress in that area - but it is of course very slow. For example their soccer teams feature plenty of immigrants which was not the case even a decade or two ago.

  • Agammamon||

    Europe has *explicitly shied away* from integrating immigrants, especially Muslim ones.

    From Britain's policy of 'no interference lest we look racist' which lead to the rape scandal in the North to France's deliberate policy of forcing them out of mainstream culture.

    Europe, for all its liberal talk, is a highly xenophobic place - *especially* when it comes to anyone darker than the average native.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Europe, for all its liberal talk, is a highly xenophobic place - *especially* when it comes to anyone darker than the average native.

    This often comes as a nasty shock to people who have never been there.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    But unless you are ready to kill or convert all the Muslims


    Conversion sounds a lot more realistic than the other options. The continent of Africa went from having less than 10% of its population as Christian in the 1900s to roughly half; China and Korea seem to have had incredible amounts of their population convert in a short amount of time, as well. In all of these cases the countries in question seem to have moved closer to western models on human rights and governance. Seeing as how we in the West have virtually no way of influencing an inter-religious debate (which frankly, Islamists of various stripes seem to be winning among their co-religionists at this point), I don't see conversion -- particularly of the voluntary kind -- as an unreasonable response at all; be it to Christianity or atheism (the latter seems less likely, but still more likely, appealing and within our power to enact than the idea that Islam will spontaneously erupt into a fount of the types of values the west prefers).

    At the very least, strong evangelism attempts in the Middle East and among Muslim immigrants would concentrate the violence inwards and put the Muslim world on the ideological defensive. It's interesting that this solution is so often rejected out of hand when it is the most likely to actually work.

  • ||

    There is also mass deportation, Zeb. Which is also a shitty option.

    But, yeah, assimilation. The French are way behind US on that. OTOH, the population has to want to assimilate. But currently even the ones who want to don't benefit from doing so.

  • Demosthenes||

    OMG, Reason. I can't even. That research is so clearly ridiculous bullshit.

  • The Grinch||

    If the bullshit fits the needed political narrative Reason will run with it. Maybe they should rename the website "Dogma."

  • MetalBard||

    Yes that would be more fitting.

  • The Grinch||

    This article, and maybe the studies themselves, are full of shoddy analysis.

    Maybe the propensity to commit religiously inspired violence seen in the religiously repressive societies was the initial cause of the repression. Maybe the causation does go the other way but we simply cannot tell.

    If there was a good longitudinal study with repression as the treatment, rather than what appears to be a classic case of correlation not equaling causation, I'd be more open to accepting tje findings at face value.

  • Ron Bailey||

    D & TG: I hear you. But there are some pretty interesting correlations on religious freedom and free speech and violence.

  • wareagle||

    or we could just keep out those who are hostile to liberty. Emphasizing values to people who despise those values is not going to make them converts.

  • Zeb||

    The thing that almost everyone values more than anything else is comfort and security for their families. It isn't the values of capitalism and freedom that will make people more peaceful and value freedom more. It is the results. People with something to lose are far less likely to throw it all away for some grand cause.

  • wareagle||

    that's why I am suggesting that we stop any more immigrants or refugees from these countries. No new laws to erode liberty, no military adventure, no dead soldiers, not a shot fired.

    Islam is not compatible with the West. Europe had loads of evidence prior to Paris. I don't see what bringing in thousands of Syrians here will accomplish. What will they do, where will they live, who feeds them, what about a language barrier, etc?

  • MetalBard||

    Here I'll repost this here

    This is why this version of Libertopia that people have with completely open-borders has never existed on Earth at any point in time. It's completely unsustainable.

    What do you do when you import a large population that believe in the complete opposite of your values? If you just ignore them then they'll just vote away your liberties, if they're violent, then eventually your population will vote away it's own liberties to try to stop them. If violence continues you're going to evolve into a police state in order to try to stop it, and if you don't then your citizens will, and you'll have a civil war on your hands.

    Any belief or ideology that results in it's own destruction seems to have a pretty big flaw in it.

  • ||

    Any belief or ideology that results in it's own destruction seems to have a pretty big flaw in it.

    Only if you smuggle in the assumption that every belief and ideology should include the goal of continuing or propagating itself.

  • Zeb||

    And that. I've been wearing the "realist hat" a lot the past few days. But ultimately my beliefs about politics and government come down to some very simple moral calculations. I'm not comfortable with trying to engineer society to promote one particular belief system.

  • wareagle||

    propagating the species is something all beings aspire to.

  • ||

    No, it's not. And even if it were, that doesn't mean it's a necessary component of all ideologies.

  • wareagle||

    of course, it is. No living thing plots its own demise. Ideologies can change over time as society evolves, of course, but I don't see them having an exit strategy, either.

  • Agammamon||

    Propagating the species is something that all beings do with different strategies. Do you think, by this standard, that the Mantis is dying out because the male dies after mating?

  • wareagle||

    the dying mantis is replaced by more than himself. Multiple births among humans are rare; among animals, they are commonplace if only to improve the odds of survival to adulthood.

  • Agammamon||

    Its not the reproduction of PEOPLE that is important here, its the reproduction of the MEME.

    The meme doesn't care what color your skin is, only that you hold the meme in your mind and act out its program.

    Human memes reproduce far faster than human beings do.

  • ||

    Um...no.

  • Agammamon||

    Or if you fail to understand that early self-destruction *is not evolutionarily detrimental* if you can reproduce fast enough.

    Double so if, in the process of self-destruction, you modify your environment so that it's even more conducive to the success of your replicator.

  • Zeb||

    Libertopia with closed borders has never existed either. Just sayin'.

    Anyway, nowhere that isn't a shithole like North Korea is going to have anything close to either completely open or closed borders anytime soon.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If we accept that our government is allowed to curtail our liberties-- especially the self-evident ones, then yes, people can vote them away.

    If, Tony-like, you believe that my right to freedom of speech as at the whim of the mob, we're certainly doing yeoman's work without the help of foreign Islamists.

  • Jordan||

    Um, we already have a large population that is hostile to liberty and is engaged in voting to restrict it.

  • Agammamon||

    We should deport all those college kids!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    And besides, everyone knows that WalMart is a greater threat than ISIS.

  • Agammamon||

    Wait, I thought it was white male sexuality?

  • Jerryskids||

    How should liberal democracies respond to terrorist attacks like the horrific series of murders on Friday in Paris? By re-emphasizing their liberal values such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion suggest a couple of recent studies.

    As a good libertarian, I support the idea of people being allowed to have whatever values they want - and to treat them by their preferred values. People who don't support free speech should have no problem with me punching them in the face and telling them to shut up, people who think it's fine to wage war in the name of their god should have no problem with me waging war against them in the name of my god, people who go around raping and robbing and torturing and killing for whatever reason should have no problem being raped and robbed and tortured and killed.

  • Agammamon||

    Worked so well with the Communists and Nazis did it? Maybe we should keep out those filthy atheists while we're at it.

  • Agammamon||

    Plus, we can ask different generations of Jews how oppression affects their loyalty to their religion.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Worked so well with the Communists and Nazis did it


    Matter of fact, it did. I note that Trotsky emigrated to Mexico and not Minnesota, and that Adolf Eichmann emigrated to Argentina rather than to Arizona.

    Fuck all of those people, and keep them far away from me and mine.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    What kind of test do you propose to make this determination?

    Right, no test. Just apply the stereotype to 1.6 billion people.

    Can we also start kicking out people who are hostile to liberty at home? What about those who convert to Islam? Let's at least segregate them or something.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    OT, a little happier news for the holiday season:

    Virginia FTW!

  • Old.Mexican||

    The paper shows that in a world in which democratic governments respond to major terrorist attacks with restrictions on freedom of expression and other rights and liberties, such policies have a moral hazard effect, which can make a terrorist attack more likely.


    The cuddling effect. We feel "safer" because Daddy Government is watching over us.

    But this is nothing new. The same effect explains why parents leave their kids in day care centers that end up hurting them or even killing them without first vetting them out: because they think that the government's licensing process exempt them from their responsibility as buyers.

    The same way the licensing process is not really meant to keep bad vendors out of the market but as a way to keep competition out, these restrictions on freedom are NOT really mean to keep us "safe" but to make us less free and more dependent on government.

  • Old.Mexican||

    So what would be the solution to the problem of terrorist attacks?

    First, realize that these are not random acts of violence like the current administration wants us to believe. The notion that these are "random" attacks would justify, in a sense, the freedom-curtailing policies that the administration wants to impose on the people. The thing is that these attacks are not random at all but focused on specific targets that deliver the maximum effect at the minimum cost. These attackers are not crazy people running amok wielding machetes on a busy street. These are smart tacticians.

    If one understands that these attacks are focused and have a political purpose, then the need for such policies is obviated precisely because they're too broad. If the government is really serious about stopping terrorists, then they would profile the people who perpetrate these attacks, instead of wasting resources by casting wide nets that catch nothing.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    OT: Uhh, ya think?

    America’s busiest ports are sending a warning about the U.S. economy.

    For the first time in at least a decade, imports fell in both September and October at each of the three busiest U.S. seaports, according to data from trade researcher Zepol Corp. analyzed by The Wall Street Journal. Combined, imports at the container terminals at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Calif. and around New York harbor, which handle just over half of the goods entering the country by sea, fell by just over 10% between August and October.

    Time to raise interest rates, Janet. Gotta slow down this overheated economy.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Wait, isn't this awesome news for Balance of Trade? Export Revolution is going full steam!

    (insert Bastiat's parable of two ships here)

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Jeffrey Gundlach says market are not stable:

    Gundlach said about a rate hike next month that many economists believe will occur: "Certainly No-Go more likely than most people think. These markets are falling apart." Los Angeles-based DoubleLine oversees $80 billion in assets under management.

    Gundlach cited a number of asset classes that are signaling deteriorating conditions: The S&P Leveraged Loan Index, which is at a four-year low, the SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond Exchange-Traded Fund "very near a four-year low" and the CRB Commodity Index at a 13-year low. "You also have the Eurozone doubling down on stimulus. Fed raising rates? Really?"

    He's usually right.

    http://www.reuters.com/article.....jlv9tkY.97

  • Pro Libertate||

    All the signs of a slow down in retail are there. And we have another housing bubble, not to mention a stock market just waiting to crash.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If my portfolio is a bellwether for a slowdown, we've been shrinking since 2014.

    Hard hat related stocks are the sux0res.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I've seen video on CNN of ISIS fighters saying in French that one of the reasons they hate the French is because they passed laws banning the wearing of veils in public--not to mention banning headscarves in public schools.

    In other words, Muslims do not enjoy our free exercise rights that the First Amendment to our Constitution is supposed to guarantee.

    As an aside, anybody who thinks the government shouldn't force fundamentalist Christians to bake cakes for gay weddings shouldn't support the government prohibiting the wearing of veils in public either.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ French_ban_on_face_covering

    Islamists have rights, too, whether the government protects them or not. And other people don't exist for our convenience--and neither do their rights.

  • Bern-o-Matic 5000||

    France is anti-free speech and anti-free religion. Those laws are wrong and should be changed.

    Blowing up innocent people is not the appropriate means for achieving that end.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Absolutely blowing up innocent people is wrong.

    I see it as like our stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia before 9/11.

    That certainly didn't justify 9/11--nothing could--but Muslim of all stripes have always been really touchy about having non-Muslim troops in their holy land.

    If we didn't want to provoke anti-American terrorism, getting those troops out of there was a smart thing to do.

    Violating the religious rights of Islamists is both stupid that way and wrong.

    And what those ISIS jihadis were saying certainly lent credence to the suggestion that there's a relationship between religious freedom and terrorism.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Unfortunately, if you go back and read Bin Laden's original declaration of war against the US, it's not just military occupation- it's the expansion of Western Culture into the Holy Lands.

    Basically, if we didn't have a single troop in the M.E., Islamic Culture is still offended and triggered by the existence of Western, Liberal ideals, loose social mores, etc., via the influx of culture through radio, satellite dish, smuggled DVDs etc. The fact of the matter is, The Caliphate is gonna be pissed at you no matter what.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We weren't trying to convince bin Laden. Osma bin Laden was a lost cause, and the only argument we should have directed at him was a bullet to the head.

    We were trying to reach potential recruits to Al Qaeda from all over the world. We lost them on all sorts of issues--especially using Saddam Hussein's old facility for political prisoners to torture Muslims, Guantanamo, etc.

    And just because fixing one thing isn't enough to fix everything doesn't mean we shouldn't move in the right direction. Who thinks that because scoring a touchdown in the first quarter isn't enough to win the game that we shouldn't even bother to try and make a first down?

    Progress is always a good idea, and getting out troops out of Saudi Arabia was progress. If the French government stopped openly violating the rights of Muslims, the animosity against France wouldn't disappear, but it would be a step in the right direction.

  • wareagle||

    If the French government stopped openly violating the rights of Muslims, the animosity against France wouldn't disappear, but it would be a step in the right direction.

    on what basis do you believe this is so? The Muslims with the greatest freedom to go about their business are the ones in Israel, yet Islam hates Israel. Denmark had a publication that ran a couple of cartoons, not a govt running roughshod over Muslims, and the calls were for death. This idea that you can make nice with radical Islam does not mesh with the evidence.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If the discrimination against Muslims is mostly their imagination, then getting rid of instances in which the discrimination is real seems like a good idea.

    For instance, Muslim girls are not allowed to wear headscarves to French schools--because it's a symbol of their religion. Christian girls, on the other hand, are allowed to wear crosses.

    It's harder to convince potential recruits that the government doesn't really discriminate against Muslims--when the government actually discriminates against Muslims.

    Think of it in American terms. Why would blacks think that whites aren't discriminating against them--so long as there are laws being enforced that discriminate against them?

    This is like accommodation laws here in the states. How many fundamentalist Christian bakers are there out there who will turn down business and cash because of their religious principles? Probably not very many--but the issue of government enforced religious rights violations matters a lot to a lot of Christians.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    For instance, Muslim girls are not allowed to wear headscarves to French schools--because it's a symbol of their religion. Christian girls, on the other hand, are allowed to wear crosses.


    I linked you wiki page for the law that explicitly says, no, crosses not allowed. Shit, Ataturk banned headscarves in schools eighty years ago, and that didn't breed a generation of terrorists.
    French idea of separation of church and state makes Dawkins look reasonable.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I linked you wiki page for the law that explicitly says, no, crosses not allowed"

    I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

    The link I posted was for the veil ban in public--not the ban of headscarves in public schools.

    Here's a link to the one on headscarves in public schools:

    "In December 2003, President Jacques Chirac decided that a law should explicitly forbid any visible sign of religious affiliation in public schools, in the spirit of secularism. The law, sometimes referred to as "the veil law", was voted in by the French parliament in March 2004. It forbids the wearing of any "ostentatious" religious articles, including the Islamic veil, the Jewish kippa, and large Christian crosses.[26] The law permits discreet signs of faith, such as small crosses, Stars of David, and hands of Fatima."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ French_law_on_secularity_and_ conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools #Law_creation_and_interpretations

    No, you may not wear a gigantic cross or Star of David, but the relatively small ones many Christian and Jewish girls wear on necklaces are perfectly okay.

    Headscarves, on the other hand, are not okay.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Ataturk banned headscarves in schools eighty years ago, and that didn't breed a generation of terrorists."

    The headscarf ban in Turkish schools was a major issue for Erdogan and an expressly Islamic political party.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Headscarf_controversy_in_Turkey #Attempts_at_lifting_ban

    I believe the issue is now effectively moot.

    https://www.rt.com/news/ 190032-turkey-headscarf-schools-ban-amendment/

  • Ken Shultz||

    Why go terrorist against an Islamist party led government that was doing everything it could to get around the ban?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    No, but by analogy, head band and/or crescent pin are OK. Seriously, schools said, take off your headdress to show respect. And no, there's no requirement for head covering in Islam - it's a later invention (picked up from Eastern Romans, really).

    Yes, they banned wearing full face masks in public. This applies to everyone, not just muslims. They didn't ban headscarves, burkas or turbans in public.

  • Free Society||

    We weren't trying to convince bin Laden. Osma bin Laden was a lost cause,

    The Islamic world in general looks like a lost cause if you've ever seen the opinion polling data that comes out of the ME.

  • Ken Shultz||

    With some people, it's so bad, they're willing to go get training from Al Qaeda or ISIS.

    No good reason to needlessly antagonize even more of them.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Were Mohammed cartoons or Hebdo covers "needlessly antagonizing", too, or was that needed?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Neither Mohammed cartoons nor Hebdo covers were perpetrated by the government.

    Again, I'm not asking for the French government to appease the terrorists.

    I'm expecting the government to respect people's religious rights instead of violating them.

    Government violating religious people's rights is needless.

    Government respecting and protecting the rights of individuals, both cartoonists and Muslims, is the needed and legitimate purpose of government.

  • MetalBard||

    Stop victim blaming it's getting old,

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    How about supporters of the victims blaming?

    Got a French flag on your Facebook profile picture? Congratulations on your corporate white supremacy

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Stop victim blaming it's getting old"

    You must hang out a lot on sites with really ignorant commenters.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    From the wiki article

    Dalil Boubakeur, the grand mufti of the Paris Mosque, the largest and most influential in France, testified to parliament during the bill's preparation. He commented that the niqāb was not prescribed in Islam, that in the French and contemporary context its spread was associated with radicalisation and criminal behavior, and that its wearing was inconsistent with France's concept of the secular state; but that due to expected difficulties in applying a legal ban, he would prefer to see the issue handled "case by case".

    Also, this is not unique to Muslims. French have had ideology of Secularism going for over a hundred years, but it's only the Muslims who blow shit up. Likewise, the Headscarf ban

    The law does not mention any particular symbol, and thus bans all Christian (veil, signs), Muslim (veil, signs), Sikh (turban, signs) Jewish and other religions' signs.[1]


    Note that Islamists were also pissy and murderous when the French didn't imprison entire staff of Charlie Hebdo, and they were pissy and murderous prior to 2011. So no, it's not that they'll stop murdering if they get First Amendment rights.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "So no, it's not that they'll stop murdering if they get First Amendment rights."

    Is it really hard to believe that terrorists are irrational?

    Anyway, I'm not saying that terrorists will stop murdering if they get First Amendment rights.

    I'm saying that oppression breeds revolt, and the government violating people's religious rights is a contributing factor to that.

    Especially when we're talking about recruitment.

    If you don't want to persuade potential recruits for ISIS that the French are against Muslims, then it might behoove the French to stop using their government to discriminate against Muslims.

    This really shouldn't be that controversial.

  • Free Society||

    Muslims in France being oppressed? It's odd then that they're migrating there, literally in droves. What breeds terrorism is Islam. What makes it an insurmountable chronic problem is multicult egalitarianism.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I didn't say they were being oppressed.

    But they are being discriminated against.

    They don't have freedom of speech in France like we do. They don't have free exercise First Amendment rights like we do.

    John Galliano was arrested and convicted in criminal court for making anti-Semitic remarks to another customer in a cafe. He was sentenced to paying 6,000 euros.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ John_Galliano#Controversy

    You are not allowed to wear veils in pubic in France.

    Does that amount to oppression? I don't suppose so--but it is government discrimination.

    And we're not just talking about people coming from other countries. France has some 5 million French Muslims in their country--many of whom were born in France. They're the descendants of Algerians, Moroccans, and Tunisians, who legally immigrated to France more than 50 years ago. Lots of French people immigrated to Algeria as far backs as the 1830s, when Algeria was under French administration, intermarried with and/or became Muslims, and then moved back to France later.

    This is to say that the idea that Muslims in France shouldn't complain about the government violating their religious rights because things would be even worse for them in some other country is absurd--when we're talking about millions of French born Muslims whose grandparents and great grandparents were just as French as I am American.

  • Homple||

    Nonetheless, it seems a bit over the top to go on a killing rampage because of a dress code.

  • ||

    In case any of you want to know what the actual Arab youth think but don't want to hear it from an American slant, Google BBC Arab teen.

  • Los Doyers||

    I fell for it. On my work laptop.

  • Agammamon||

    Soon to be the 'laptop at your former employer' no doubt.

  • Los Doyers||

    Unless they're into that stuff...

    *crosses fingers*

  • ||

    I've been too busy lately to waste much time here lately. How much pants-shitting has the commentariat indulged in? I'm curious.

  • Bern-o-Matic 5000||

    A lot.

  • Swiss Servator||

    There seem to be three main schools of thought;

    1. Nuke 'em and piss on the ashes

    2. Needz moar refugees

    3. Despair and seek alcohol or coffee (maybe both)

    I am firmly in camp #3.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    For shame. 3 is just the sort of provocation that causes these attacks.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Twas a bit culturally insensitive wasn't it?

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    It was the Ottoman soldiers fleeing the Polish Army at Vienna that left behind millions of bags of coffee that became the foundation of Viennese and then European coffee shops.

  • Swiss Servator||

    KULTURALLLL APPROPRYEASHUNZ!

  • Los Doyers||

    They hate us for our bourbon.

  • ||

    How much of the "herd the sandniggers into camps" sort of pants-shitting has there been?

  • Agammamon||

    Ohohohohoho - 'herd the sand-niggers into camps' is on the *reasonable* end of the responses.

  • Los Doyers||

    It's much more "Ban all the sandniggers! How, you say? Well, we'll get to that."

  • Swiss Servator||

    That is a subset of the nuke 'em camp.

    More like "deport all muslims".... then nuke Mecca.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    You have my axe... I mean carafe!

  • IceTrey||

    4. Improve the lives of average Muslims through radical capitalism.

  • Agammamon||

    that's just crazy talk.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's a nice sentiment, but there's this little thing called "progressivism" standing in the way of that.

  • Swiss Servator||

    I did say "main" schools of thought... :)

    Can we try that radical capitalism thingy here in the US, plz?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Can we try that radical capitalism thingy here in the US, plz?

    It's a nice sentiment, but there's this little thing called "progressivism" standing in the way of that.

  • Swiss Servator||

    I've heard that!

  • ||

    Buttloads. And pointed that out is "the stupidest thing ever said" apparently. You can probably guess who said that.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Didn't we basically have Cytotoxic say nuke the entire Muslim world, but if they make it to the border of the EU alive, they get a house and a French maid?

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's basically a Canadian version of the classic French "Hump or Death" dilemma.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Nope.

  • Tak Kak||

    I think the most interesting thing here is that someone actually uses Game Theory.

  • MSimon||

    Does PTSD cause terrorism? It seems like terrorists have all the symptoms.

    Unquenchable anger being the chief symptom in this case.

  • Agammamon||

    I think the cause is lack of pussy myself.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKZ1DlcmHMI

  • MSimon||

    I wrote a piece on this :

    Does PTSD Cause Terrorism?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I wonder if France can call what happened on Friday the "Alien Invasion" that Paul Krugman said would provide legitimate stimulus.

  • Swiss Servator||

    *slow clap*

    +10000 broken windows

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I for one am glad to see Reason curtailing new Blogposts.

  • Boomer||

    These studies suggest that giving up our freedoms in response to terrorist attacks will more likely make us less, not more, secure.

    And why not?

    1. Initiate a strategy to provoke a specific reation.
    2. Evaluate results of initial effort.
    3. If strategy results in desired effect then continue.

  • Wildbill2u||

    This argument is a classical fallacy: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is the false argument/ fallacy in which the person making the argument connects two events which happen sequentially and assumes that one caused the other.

    Terrorists within and without our country to not attack us as a response because we curtail their religion. They attack us because their religious beliefs command them to attack us, simply because we do not subscribe to their religion or bow down before it as slaves.

  • IceTrey||

    I pretty sure invading, occupying and bombing their countries has something to do with it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Nope. They are quite explicit that they hate us for our freedoms, and want Islam to dominate all.

  • MichaelL||

    Where do they get the idea that today's liberals, in the US, are promoting freedom of religion and free speech? They seem to doing just the opposite, if we pay attention to the news! Denying free speech on campuses is in the news, everywhere! Oppression of peoples religious practices, too, seems to be everywhere. The liberals are two faced, or as said by Indians in the old movies, "They speak with fork-ed tongues!"

  • Duelles||

    Game theory requires two rational parties. End of game theory. Go back to Cain and Able, real or metaphor, to change human behavior. Good luck.

  • ranrod||

    The US is NOT a democracy - we are a Constitutional Republic.......................

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online