Those in the ABC and SBS who seek to legitimise the notion of the Islamic/Muslim culture being 'provoked' .. had better start realising as with a bullying child they are legitimising the Islamic/Muslim behaviour terror against Other.
There are much worse images through time and space than the above predicated upon the construct of 'provoked' yet we pander to this culture of death which is Islam by legitimising such actions through legislation and notions being 'provoked' is 'understandable'.
What is not being questioned here is why does a culture secular or religious require a cultural codex which informs a mental schema of 'provocation' which informs violent response? Nobody that I can see is asking why is it there in the first place? We are simply accepting such a construct is valid, given history I believe this is a very dangerous assumption to make.
Importantly when one reflects the logic, the violence tied inextricably to such a cultural construct of 'provocation' will be found elsewhere to enforce internal and external compliance via fear of Other, to gender constructs and obligations to ritual (reinforcement alignment) and codex stipulated behavior, regards the Islamic/Muslim culture womens demeanour and action against Other jihad etc.
Why 'will be' not 'maybe' found elsewhere as a cultural control and enforcement mechanism? It is because once such a construct of 'provocation' to violence determined as rightfully triggered by Others (women's), the victims, lack of 'responsible' behavior cannot be contradicted elsewhere as it would create severe cognitive dissonance on the part of the adherents as the ethical, value difference of no violence is justified against that of violence is justified are clearly diametrically opposed as was the slave-not slave in the US Public Square in the 1800s. So this construct of 'provocation' to violence underwrites the Muslim adherence internal and alignment of Other through fear. You really think it is wise to support at any point a notion of being 'responsible' regards such a culture which utilises such inherent violence?
The shadows define us be it individual or culture we must therefore not take subjective derived portraits, particularly self-portraits at face-value.
It is my perception a war is currently occurring in Western Public Squares for the retention of the Western scientific method of “Duty to Doubt” Be doubtful, Be sceptical, Be critical, against the increasing imposition of the Religious method of “Duty to Certainty” Be certain, Be compliant, Be silent, assisted in major part by our very own Western inept cultural gatekeepers.
The West spent centuries and many lives removing the “Duty of Certainty” from our Public Squares and here we are again.
I am afraid of what this will inform in major part for woman's place in society. Sensitivity to such constructs for me in showing of half the image of the new Charlie Hebdo's front page by the ABC reinforces the notion the attack, the killing of innocents was in part half justified this if carried forward is the death knell of the Western developed definition of freedom particularly for women - half free determines what?
"Now even the Pope says he would PUNCH someone who insulted his mother as he says there are 'limits to freedom of speech' following Charlie Hebdo attack"
By OLLIE GILLMAN FOR MAILONLINE PUBLISHED: 21:33 EST, 15 January 2015
Are any Western policy makers and particularly women journalists realising what this return to the paradigm of justified violence derived from the provocation and the subsequent victim being 'responsible' for incitement means for women in particular. Psychology would deem it is simply impossible to quarantine the logic of a mental schema justifying one form of behavior from another.
Start to think below the surface. Why is a mental schema of determining the victim 'responsible' for provocation of another person to violence ever required? Could it be an iniquitous construct and/or unsubstantiated logic exists for a belief informing negative outcomes for Other (inclusive of women)?
The notion of Islamic 'provocation' justifying and authorising violence, blaming the violence against the victim for not acting 'responsibly' is utilised to justify what else in the Islamic/Muslim culture? To say this is not the 'real' Islam or is not Islam at all as Obama is now stating what I ask is the categorisation in terms of the authority hierarchy of DR Abd Al-Aziz?
Let us examine the potential veracity of such statements of denial of attribution of a cultures creation of terror either by Other who take the culture adherents leaders word as valid despite the missing, burning buildings and broken bodies and lives.
'Let’s call them what they are,' Obama's spokesman said on Tuesday. 'These terrorists are individuals who would like to cloak themselves in the veil of a particular religion.
'But based on the fact that the religious leaders of that religion have roundly condemned their actions, those religious leaders have indicated that their actions are entirely inconsistent with Islam,' he said.
Religion that dare not speak its name: British PM warns of global 'Islamist extremist terrorist threat' while America's president still won't mention Islam
By FRANCESCA CHAMBERS FOR DAILYMAIL.COM PUBLISHED: 17 January 2015
“the Germans (inclusive of the Nazi) that great unified people are looking for peace and see friendship with Britain as a basis for peace not only for themselves but for everyone else”. Norman Hillson “I speak of Germany”, London 1937
Tanzpalast Eden Trial: On November 22, 1930, an SA Rollkommando attacked a popular dance hall frequented predominantly by left-wing workers. The victims were members of a migrant workers' association that was holding a meeting at the Tanzpalast Eden ("Eden Dance Palace") in Berlin. Three people were killed and 20 injured in an attack that was planned in advance.)” Hans Litten: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hans Achim Litten in cross-examined Hitler 1931 in a court case involving two workers stabbed by four Brownshirts (paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party). Litten understood clearly in his interrogation words and sentences are not written in foundation codex for no reason they are to inform ethics driving actions of adherents.
Excerpts from the trialLitten: (...) Did you know that in the circles of the SA there is talk of a special rollkommando?
Hitler: I haven't heard anything about a rollkommando. (...)
Litten: You said that there will be no violent acts on the part of the National Socialist Party. Didn't Goebbels create the slogan, "one must pound the adversary to a pulp?"
Hitler: This is to be understood as "one must dispatch and destroy opposing organizations". (...)
(The presiding judge read a question formulated by Litten): Did Hitler, as he named Goebbels Reich Minister of Propaganda, know of the passage from his book, where Goebbels declares that fear of the coup d'état cannot be permitted, that parliament should be blown up and the government hunted to hell and where the call to revolution was made again, letter-spaced?
Hitler: I can no longer testify under oath, if I knew Goebbels' book at the time. The theme (...) is absolutely of no account to the Party, as the booklet doesn't bear the Party emblem and is also not officially sanctioned by the Party. (...)
Obama and those who support his view firstly need to explain if Not-Islam given the following is true as social psychology determines "Cultures justify and authorise terror the individual adherent 'few' as individuals and in groups deliver it." which culture is informing the terrorists behavior given terrorism is a political act necessarily requiring a culture to frame such behavior?
Importantly has Obama and those who support his view found the 'theme' of justification and authorisation for the terror against Other 'is absolutely of no account to the Party (Islam) , as the booklet (Quran) doesn't bear the Party (Islamic) emblem and is also not officially sanctioned by the Party (Islamic/Muslim culture). (...)'?
Is there nowhere in the Islamic text, in particular the core Islamic textual codex the Quran where justification and authorisation for the murder of Other exists to enable the terror against Other to occur and determines the claims by "these religious leaders" "no violent acts on the part of the National Socialist Party (Islamic/Muslim culture) it is Not-Islam as valid?
Have I sinned? What is a Genocide Construct of Other and Why it is formed?
You really want to introduce into the Western Public Squares the victim is 'responsible' for the violence committed against them? Where previously Western culture accepted as a norm perceived provocation from whatever source and of whatever content is no excuse for violence. Think what reintroducing the 'victim' has to act 'responsibly' or they (generally women and now with the Muslim culture Other as well) deserve what they get.
Where are the feminists of the 1960s when you need them - this a Man construct to protect Mans institutions and power.
The fact is this ability of the Islamic/Muslim culture to be able to derive a mental schema of culturally perceived 'provocation' to justify and authorise violence is there for a reason and it is because violence is needed to align Muslim adherents to Muslim norms particularly women to iniquitous constructs of being subject to Muslim Mans 'leadership' and Other via the Muslim codex being determined as less evil etc. and therefore able to be excluded politically and even physically by expulsion or murder clearly requires the legitimisation of a construct of 'provocation' to excuse Islamic/Muslim violent behavior which is clearly necessary for reason, Western derived reason, will not suffice to convince Other such outcomes are in their interests.
Underwriting such behavior, excusing it, via legislation against insulting a culture, hurting a cultures feelings as can be seen in Pakistan simply legitimises even the police killing of those accused of causing offence.
It would be wise for our Western inept cultural gatekeepers to reflect on a free speech construct which was deemed to be absolutely necessary in a Democracy when in the past as now two diametrically opposed values regards 'freedom' existed in the same Public Square.
"It was one of Lincoln’s ways of working out his chief value to the country, and that value was his clear sense from the start it was our democratic scheme that was at stake, and that if it was to be saved, every citizen who could aid must help to give all that was in them.
Lincoln seems to have put it something like this to himself:
Everybody in the country has had a part in bringing this thing about; everybody feels they have a right to say how things shall be handled; everybody that is worth their salt is going to exercise that right, and they are going to do it according to the kind of person they are – according to their temperament, their training, their self-control, their meanness, and their goodness. If we are going to put this thing through and prove that citizens can govern themselves, we must get from them what they can give, and we must let them give it in their own way.” Source: The Life of Abraham Lincoln, Tarbell, 1917
Stephen Fry put it this way:
Stephen Fry on Charlie Hebdo
I put it this way:
The Right to misjudge and be misjudged, the Right to insult and be insulted, the Right to abuse and be abused, the Right to sneer and be sneered at these Rights are the foundation stones of a true Democracy remove them and theocratic or secular tyranny of a single thought will be their replacement.
The same act of ABC half folding determining Western media 'responsibility' for provocation sends what message to Saudi Arabia regards another media person Saudi blogger Raif Badawi determined under the Islamic construct as 'responsible' for provoking 1000 lashes? This is not a construct which once agreed to saves you from harm for is half still enough for such a construct? You cannot be half free and half slave.
Tony Abbott open to revisiting Bolt laws, but rejects immediate changes in light of Charlie Hebdo by Latika Bourke SMH January 14, 2015
Rather than Abbott waiting to remove the legislative legitimisation of Islamic/Muslim right to be 'provoked' Abbott needs to move immediately to do so for such an act of reticence culpably continues to say 'Islamic/Muslim' terror is if not acceptable from a Western perspective it is understandable given the 'Islamic/Muslim construct of 'provocation' which legitimises Islamic/Muslim cultures violent reaction.
Rewarding a violent petulant child or culture for their behavior which this legislation and support for the notion ‘the Islamic/Muslim culture has been understandably ‘provoked’ has the exact same result.
True Democracy: The Right to misjudge and be misjudged, the Right to insult and be insulted, the Right to abuse and be abused....