A most dangerous game
France has helped terrorists in the past: Specifically, America during the war of independence. Should we ban anyone who expresses support for the United States in any way? Should France arrest itself? Because that's the only way actions like this can be morally cohesive. Of course, they won't, so it's not just morally incoherent but it's also prejudicial in a legal sense. It may not be politically convenient to admit, but terrorism *is* an effective method of political change when all other methods have failed. We can denounce it, but we cannot ignore it -- and we cannot answer it with silence and expect a peaceful outcome. Stopping terrorism is about making sure those other methods *don't* fail.
-
It is not a free and democratic society as long as someone can say they sympathize with a terror group and then find themselves in legal trouble. If they actually *fund* terrorism, give *substantive* material support in some fashion, or incite or advocate specific acts of violence, then there is a strong moral basis for punishing them. The mere expression of an opinion, however offensive, distasteful, immoral, etc., should never be a crime.
-
This law may have been passed out of a desire to remove terrorism from the public conversation, ostensibly to curb support for it, but the fact is, we can't beat terrorism by closing our eyes, plugging our fingers in our ears, and arresting anyone who doesn't follow suit. Terrorism is an idea, and ideas can only be defeated with better ideas. The freedom of speech and the civil liberties that a democratic society depends on is the best antidote to not just terrorism, but political violence of any kind, domestic or foreign.
-
Violence starts when people stop talking, for whatever reason, and violence ends when people start talking. This isn't just about terrorism, this is about the fundamentals of what it takes to make a society. Any society. Society doesn't start until the transition from vigilantism to the rule of law. We develop judges, juries, and trials. We resolve our differences with words, not guns. Violence decreases whenever there is an increase in communication -- when we allow people to peacefully protest, they are less inclined to violently revolt. Even if the trials are rigged, unfair, even if we have secret courts and gross perversions of justice... that system is still better than vigilantism. Every move towards communication, even with a lot of political corruption, is a step towards a greater peace. The reverse is also true: When people feel ignored, when they are afraid to speak out against injustice, they are liable to take justice into their own hands. Fundamentally, this is what leads to terrorism: A sense of powerlessness. It crosses boundaries of social class and economics -- rich and poor alike will revolt if they feel ignored.
-
When the citizens of France read stuff like this, that's what some of them are going to feel. They're being disenfranchised; Ostensibly on the basis of religious preference. The intention may very well be to prevent violence, but that's not how it will be interpreted or how it will end up. They might as well be slapping up recruitment posters for ISIS because that's who is joining them: People who feel the government is ignoring or persecuting them. And seeing stuff like this is just reinforcing that. It's like the racially-motivated violence happening in this country: It's not just one thing, but a thousand papercuts that eventually drive people to radicalize. Everytime something like this happens, it's another papercut, and thanks to the miracles of confirmation bias -- de-escalation becomes exponentially more difficult the more it happens.
-
I know it's "just" a wifi network name, but look at it through the eyes of our abstract disenfranchised citizen who reads this and thinks "If they're willing to go to such lengths for merely mentioning it..." And then they're going to be afraid. I know, you may think this is a good thing: People who sympathize with terrorists *should* be afraid, but it's the wrong answer because fear is what drives radicalization. To fight radicalization, we need to engage the segments of the population that are vulnerable to it and make them a part of the political process. We have to make them feel included, not excluded. They have to feel safe enough to come forward and air their greviances, whatever they are.
-
Right now, peace can be had in France at a bargain price. But that price is going up with every news story like this, every act of overt discrimination and prejudice. The citizens of France may not like what the price will become if they keep ignoring the inequities in their country much longer. And the same can be said of many, many other countries right now. Legal actions like this are playing a most dangerous game, and the only winning move for this game... is not to play.
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
