Norway had a great response to their terror attack in 2011.<p><pre><code> The country would "stand firm in defending our values" and the "open,
tolerant and inclusive society", he said. "The Norwegian response
to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political
participation." -- Jens Stoltenberg, Norwegian Prime Minister [at the time]
</code></pre>
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/norway-terror-attacks-prime-minister" rel="nofollow">http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/norway-terror-a...</a>
The question is, can liberalism be intolerant of intolerance?<p>If this is the exception rather than the rule, then we shouldn't sacrifice any rights.<p>However, if islamISTS or communISTS or nazISTS or anyone else decides to take advantage of a liberal society and attempt to overthrow it, systematically, shouldn't there be some way to prevent it?<p>I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas. Of course, the civil libertarian in me says that freedom of expression should be maximized. But I also realize that there are mind viruses out there that compete with liberalISM and despise it for one reason or another. The question is, how intolerant should we be of intolerance? In the United States, for instance, we have become very intolerant of racists and homophobes.<p>I am not talking about this particular incident.
Hear. Hear. Let's make sure that life in a free society is preserved no matter what threat it is put under.<p>I see that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is calling for individuals and news media organizations to respond to the Charlie Hebdo attack too, and I hope they follow her suggestions.[1]<p>A historical example I turn to about how to respond to grave national danger is that during the United States Civil War, the 1864 election occurred exactly on the expected schedule, and Abraham Lincoln was prepared to be voted out of office during the middle of the war. Of course in parliamentary systems elections do not occur at predictable intervals as they do in the United States constitutional system, but I've always thought that was a good example of how not to cave in to the temptation of self-benefit "for the sake of the country's stability" by delaying the election or something like that. Lincoln did invoke the power (a power granted by the Constitution from the beginning[2]) to suspend the right of habeas corpus during the War of Rebellion (as the Civil War was called by the Union at the time), but habeas corpus was restored as soon as the rebellion ceased.<p>We should cherish all of our freedoms all of the time and guard them zealously. We should exercise free speech to minimize the risk of future attacks like the attack in Paris, by openly disagreeing with the kind of thinking that leads to attacks like that.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/ayaan-hirsi-ali-our-duty-is-to-keep-charlie-hebdo-alive.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/ayaan-hirsi...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus</a>
My (hastily written) email to the EFF on this issue:<p>=====<p>"Even as we mourn the losses at Charlie Hebdo, we must be wary of any attempt to rush through new surveillance and law enforcement powers, which are likely to disproportionately affect Muslims ..."<p>May I suggest the following thought experiment?<p>Imagine if Hebdo staff had been murdered by Neo-NAZIs (it's certainly within the realm of possibility; the publication skewered the political right as much as it did other groups like Muslims, and fascist groups are known for their love of violence).<p>Would you be decrying the possibility that new laws might disproportionately effect Neo-NAZIs?<p>There are many parallels between the politics of Islam and the politics of National Socialism: the rejection of individualism, the anti-semitism, the subordination of all aspects of life to the philosophy, the hero-worship of the leader, etc. etc.<p>The fact that most Muslims are not actively engaged in Jihad has parallels with the observation that most Germans during WWII weren't actively fighting for the NAZI party. To support an evil philosophy is morally wrong, regardless of whether that philosophy is or is not
religious in nature.<p>I'm particularly saddened to see the EFF join in the pretence that Islam, in and of itself, is worthy of respect. The philosophy, and the mainstream religious movement itself, is inimically opposed to the freedoms you seek to protect.<p>=====
People here live in a bubble. We're afraid of an orwelian society, but in the case of france, we're still unable to catch those guys eventhough they :
- killed people in the center of Paris, including cops protecting the area.<p>- left their id card at the back of the car<p>- had 2 car accident while running away inside Paris and changed the car twice<p>- stopped at a gas station a few kilometers away from paris to get some gas,where the owner recognized them.<p>- were already under monitoring by the counter terrorism, for having tried to go to war in iraq ten years ago.<p>- have 8000 cops chasing them all over the country, and 24 hours later, they lost their tracks, for the second time.<p>We don't live in an orwelian society. We REALLY don't.
Also worth mentioning: The authorities already knew the subjects. The supposedly even had recent warnings regarding Charlie Hebdo. They have had police officers there for a long time, too. And for most cases of terrorism in the last decades it was the same.<p>Generally, the police usually knows about the suspects before. They just can't do much before they commit a crime. The unwarranted surveillance of everyone can't possibly prevent attacks by people who already were filtered anyway. Much better to invest the budget in classical targeted intelligence and police work and into improving the response _if_ something has happened.
The general population has been sold a bill of goods by those in power that those in power cannot possible make good on. As long as there are small groups of armed individuals, highly motivated and unmoved by the fear of laws or death, a government cannot guarantee the general populations safety.<p>Only when the people finally come to understand this fact and decide to make good on the need to provide their own protection will you see a change in the reaction to these events.<p>This idea is what continues to drive the gun vs. anti-gun movement in the USA. Individuals still want to be able to provide for their own protection, while the other side wishes that we rely upon government to provide that protection.<p>Like it or not the unarmed police officers on bikes were just more sheep sent to the slaughter by a government that had convinced the people that it could provide for their safety. When it not only failed totally, but is still failing today as the people are no safer then they were yesterday.
Congress is way ahead of you EFF:<p><a href="http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/228945-top-house-dem-to-reintroduce-major-cyber-bill" rel="nofollow">http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/228945-top-house-dem...</a><p>It's also interesting to see how American media is reacting to this attack, in a manner that's completely opposite of how the French media reacted, or other journalists in other countries.<p>Just like with the Sony threat, Americans seem ready to holds their hands up at any threat now:<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/01/07/fox-news-has-no-plans-to-air-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/01/0...</a><p>The best way to hurt the terrorists is not to kill them. They <i>want</i> to die for their cause. It's to show that you are not afraid of them. Terrorist attacks are meant to create "terror" in populations, so the population or its government react a certain way.<p>The US gov/population is reacting exactly the wrong way to terror attacks. France or Norway (that massacre a couple of years back) reacted the <i>right</i> way. Being "scared of offending the terrorists" is exactly what the terrorists are going for, and if it works once, why not try it again when something else offends them?
<i>As free speech advocates, we mourn the use of violence against individuals who used creativity and free expression to engage in cultural and political criticism. Murder is the ultimate form of censorship</i><p>It always amaze me why do world want to practice freedom of expressions against Islam only. Why not one is allowed to mock Holocaust like things by using same tool of freedom of expression?
Too soon. The main dudes are still out there, and now there's some warning about legislation? You can't warn about consequences when the wound is so fresh -- we're still in emotional-trying-to-process-land.<p>I saw this after 9/11... people protesting generically against war on 9/12 in SF. I normally am a big supporter of the EFF but this feels out of touch with reality.
It's really just bullshit, all the way around.<p>The terrorists, the various governments, people killing each other, the EFF, the predictable media response, the endless commenting and discussing by everyone who has a keyboard--as if what they have to say really matters--and the fact that nothing will change. Absolutely nothing.<p>Bullshit. All of it.
Let's call a spade a spade here. Government's don't care even a little about protecting their people with the surveillance bills that come from events like this. They're just using events as an excuse to grab power from the people. We all know that. If they did care, they'd be pouring money into driver-less cars to reduce road fatalities. Let's stop even attributing decency and sense to government actions and just admit they're power grabs.<p>The EFF is already probably too aggressive/extreme in their messages for most of the public, so I see why they say it this way. But we don't have to be PC about it. This article should be titled "Governments, please mar the trajectory at Charlie Hebdo by claiming you care about it."
The problem is, you actually need an all-seeing surveillance state if you're going to mass-import millions of Muslims in to a non-Muslim country. The violence will keep getting worse as their numbers in Western countries grow and the spineless dhimmis continue to apologise for them. Unfortunately beyond a certain point (which we seem to have already passed) it is simply impossible to stop, no matter how efficient the state is at foiling their plots.